alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Owens IRVING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44546.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. *2,*1972.

Will Gray, Houston (on appeal only), for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis Bell and Don Lambert, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery by assault. A prior conviction of like character was alleged for enhancement under Article 62, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. His punishment was assessed by the jury at life.

The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.

The record reflects that a man entered Zale’s Jewelry Store in Houston and engaged the store manager in a conversation concerning diamond rings. A minute or so later the appellant entered the store and asked an employee to show him some items. After inspecting merchandise some five or six minutes, he walked to the door *778as if to leave, turned around, pulled a gun out of his pocket and announced it was a holdup. The other man also pulled a gun. The appellant then ordered his companion to take two employees to the back of the store, forced the manager to open the cash register in the office and remove between $400 and $500 which was placed in a paper sack. He then ordered the manager to give him some diamond rings, cameras, watches and a radio. The property of the approximate value of $2500 was taken. The appellant threatened to kill the manager and the employees. He forced the manager to pull the telephone cord out of the wall. The robbers left after ordering the people in the store to stay there some twenty minutes.

Appellants first ground of error is as follows:

> “Defendant was denied due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States where the prosecution sought and obtained a life sentence by utilizing Defendant’s prior conviction for enhancement purposes solely because the Defendant refused to accept the State’s recommended sentence of twenty-five years and insisted upon his constitutional right to a jury trial.”

His contention is apparently that the prior conviction was used against him solely because he allegedly declined to accept a recommendation of 25 years made by the State. His contention is not supported by the record.

The allegation of the prior conviction was made in the indictment some five months prior to the time the case was tried.

If the State made an offer to recommend a term of 25 years upon appellant’s pleading guilty and appellant refused the offer insisting on a trial and pleading not guilty, the State would not be bound to comply with its refused offer nor dismiss the enhancement allegation of the indictment at the trial. No error is shown.

Next, the appellant contends that he did not have adequate representation because there was a conflict of interest between counsel and the appellant. Nothing in the record supports this allegation, and it is without merit.

The appellant was well represented.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORRISON and ODOM, JJ., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60715-60716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24234]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States of America 
v. George H. Johnson, et al., No. 2:05-cv-3579-PHX (D. Ariz.), was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the District of 
Arizona, Phoenix Division, on October 7, 2008.
    The proposed Consent Decree concerns an amended complaint filed on 
December 28, 2006 against George H. Johnson, Johnson International, 
Inc., General Hunt Properties, Inc., and 3-F Contracting, Inc. for 
alleged violations of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (``CWA''), 
33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The proposed Consent Decree resolves all allegations 
against the defendants for discharging and/or causing to be discharged 
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, namely, the 
Santa Cruz River and its tributaries, including the Los Robles Wash, at 
various sites commonly known as the King Ranch and La Osa Ranch located 
in Pinal County, Arizona, without a permit issued by the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Rochelle L. 
Russell, Trial Attorney, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, 
Washington, DC 20026, and refer to United States v. Johnson, DJ 
<greek-i> 90-5-1-1-17469.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix 
Division. In addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be

[[Page 60716]]

viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Stephen L. Samuels,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & 
Natural Resources Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-24234 Filed 10-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P
Exhibit 23.2

NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Gastar Exploration Ltd.

1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1080

Houston, Texas 77010

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

Gentlemen:

As independent oil and gas consultants, Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the incorporation by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gastar Exploration Ltd. of information from our reserve report dated February 10, 2009 entitled Estimate of Reserves and Future Revenues to Gastar Exploration Ltd. Interest in Certain Oil and
Gas Properties located in the United States as of December 31, 2008, Based on Constant Prices and Costs in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commission Guidelines and all references to our firm included in or made a part of the
Gastar Exploration Ltd. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.



Yours very truly,NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC./s/ C.H. SCOTT REESC.H. (Scott) Rees III, P.E. President and Chief
Operating Officer


March 11, 2009

Dallas, Texas
Exhibit 99.1


                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Timothy Kelley Millet, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Trust Certificates
(TRUCs), Series 2002-1 Trust;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the depositor by the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;
and

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the depositor
and the trustee under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the depositor and the
trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank
Trust National Association, as trustee, and its officers and agents.




                                By:  /s/ Timothy Kelley Millet
                                     -------------------------------------
                                Name:    Timothy Kelley Millet
                                Title:   Chief Executive Officer/President,
                                         Bear Stearns Depositor Inc.
                                Date:    March 23, 2004



                                       6
<PAGE>   1
                            TEMPLATE SOFTWARE, INC.                   EXHIBIT 11
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                                February 28, 1997   February 29, 1996

<S>                                                             <C>                 <C>
Net income                                                      $         407,214   $         156,114
                                                                ======================================

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding                     2,905,550           2,182,994

Weighted average effect of common stock equivalents (using
the treasury stock method)                                              2,116,970           1,471,460

Common shares issued within one year of initial filing                        -                64,014

Common stock equivalents issued within one year of initial
filing                                                                        -               940,532
                                                                --------------------------------------
                                                                        5,022,520           4,659,000
                                                                ======================================

Net income per common share                                     $            0.08   $            0.03
                                                                ======================================


</TABLE>
#### CITY OF LIVE OAK, FLORIDA, a Municipal Corporation Under the Laws of Florida et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. Carl F. WEIL et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

Alfred T. Airth and J. L. Blackwell, both of Live Oak, for plaintiffs in error.

J. Franklin Garner, of Lakeland, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for defendants in error.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Alma E. HOLM, Guardian of the Person and Property of Arthur M. Erickson, Incompetent.

No. 11033.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1937.

Edward G. Dunn, U. S. Atty., of Mason City, Iowa.

Reed, Beers & Graham, of Waterloo, Iowa, and Nagle & Hill, of Clarion, Iowa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal docketed and dismissed on motion of appellant and consent of appellee*
#### Louis J. BECKER, Collector of Internal Revenue, First District of Missouri, Appellant, v. Laura M. MATTIS.

No. 11032.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1937.

Herbert H. Freer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Chase Morsey, of St. Louis, Mo., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal docketed and dismissed on motion of appellant and waiver and consent of appellee.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1559 

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 

to reauthorize the provision of telemedicine and distance learning services 

in rural areas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mr. THUNE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 

Act of 1990 to reauthorize the provision of telemedicine 

and distance learning services in rural areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TELEMEDICINE AND DISTANCE LEARNING 

4 SERVICES IN RURAL AREAS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2335A of the Food, Agri6 culture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 

7 950aaa–5) is amended by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘2012’’. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 1559 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1(b) of 

2 Public Law 102–551 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa note) is amended 

3 by striking ‘‘2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2012’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
#### JORDAN v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.*

No. 4603.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 2, 1934.

For former opinion, see 150 So. 419.

Montgomery & Montgomery, of New Orleans, and Nash Johnson, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

*

For opinion denying rehearing, see 153 So. 552.

MILLS, Judge.

As stated in our original opinion, the issues in this case are those of consideration for the assignment and its effect.

Upon a re-examination , of the record we are now satisfied that the payment by the assignee of the note given by the insured for the first premium was a valid and a contemplated consideration for the assignment. The evidence shows that this note was not' paid for the insured, but as a part of the obligation of the assignee under the assignment. As there was no debt or obligation owing to the assignee by the insured, the assignment could not have been intended as, or have the effect of, a pledge or agreement of collateral security. Civ. Code, art. 3133.

We were led astray in our former opinion by attaching too much importance to the testimony of the plaintiff and too little to the actual transaction as disclosed by the written exhibits. It is .true Mr. Jordan, in answer to the question why he took the assignment, stated that his reason was to protect his brother’s family and to keep up the policy. As we now see it, this was simply a statement of the motive that-actuated him in making the contract but it was no part of the agreement itself. A party’s private reasons for entering into a contract form *no part*of it.

The act of assignment is absolute and unconditional, supported by a valid consideration executed by the insured and the beneficiary upon the company’s form, within the terms of the policy, and accepted by the defendant company. Every cent of premium has been paid by the plaintiff. Since the date of assignment in 1912, neither the insured nor the beneficiary was evinced any interest whatever in the policy. Nor are they now making any contest or asserting any claim under it. Already having a valid title to the policy, plaintiff cannot be required to procure further evidence of his ownership. Another assignment could add nothing to the effect of the first one. Were there adverse claims to the surrender value of this policy, the remedy of defendant would be to deposit this sum in court, cite the various claimants to appear and assert their claims. Failing to make this showing and take this course, defendant cannot sit tight and refuse to pay any one.

For the above assigned reasons, our former judgment is set aside and recalled. The judgment appealed from is now affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Date: February 28, 2013

Courtroom Deputy: J. Chris Smith

FTR Technician: Kathy Terasaki

____________________________________________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02567-RPM

PIEERE D. ROEMER, No appearance

 

Plaintiff,

v.

FLOYD CAPISTRANT, in his individual and professional capacities, Thomas S. Rice

JOHN MARTIN, in his individual and professional capacities,

WILLIAM ROCKENSOCK in his individual and professional capacities and

SCOTT MAXWELL, in his individual and professional capacities,

Defendants.

____________________________________________________________________________________

COURTROOM MINUTES

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

11:00 a.m. Court in session.

Court’s preliminary remarks.

Court’s statements regarding plaintiff’s counsel Ms. Lynda E. Carter’s non appearance, attempts by its

Chambers to contact plaintiff’s counsel, the February 15, 2013 Minute Order setting this hearing and no

response filed to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Statement by Mr. Rice regarding his last communication with Ms. Carter. 

Court statement regarding its review of the case, pleadings filed and Rule 56.

Courts oral findings of fact and conclusions of law as stated on record. 

ORDERED: Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 25, 2012 [25], is granted.

Judgment will enter in favor of defendants’ dismissing this civil action and

awarding costs.

11:15 a.m. Court in recess. Hearing concluded. Total time: 15 mins.

Case 1:11-cv-02567-RPM Document 28 Filed 02/28/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
# **Exhibit 31.6**

#  

I, R. Herbert Hampton, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-K/Aof Golden Cycle Gold Corporation:

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; and

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

 

 

Date: June 29, 2005

 
|   | /s/ R. Herbert Hampton  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | R. Herbert Hampton      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
PROMISSORY NOTE


$1,000,000.00                                             Saint Paul, Minnesota
                                                            November 29, 2000


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I hereby promise to pay to Conseco Finance Corp.
("Conseco Finance"), a Delaware corporation, the sum of One Million and 00/1000
Dollars ($1,000,000.00) plus all accrued interest under the Promissory Note,
dated July 1, 1999, issued by the undersigned to Conseco Finance. This Note
supersedes and replaces such July 1, 1999 Promissory Note. Interest on the
unpaid balance of this note shall accrue at the rate of 7% per annum. All
accrued interest shall be due and payable on or before December 31, 2000. The
unpaid principal amount of this note together with interest thereon at the rate
of 7% per annum, shall be due and payable upon the earlier of (i) December 31,
2003; and (ii) the date of the undersigned's voluntary termination of employment
with Conseco Finance.

         Payments made hereunder shall be made at 1100 Landmark Towers, Saint
Paul, Minnesota. This note, together with accrued interest, may be paid in full
or in part at any time without premium or penalty.



                                     /s/Bruce A. Crittenden
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Bruce A. Crittenden
#### FREQUENCY ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATIONAL RADIO COMPANY, INC., Defendant, and Louis Lerner, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 52, Docket 76-7083.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 19, 1976.

Decided Dec. 9, 1976.

*498Arnold S. Schickler, New York City (Vincenti & Schickler, Jesse A. Epstein, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Edwin J. Carr, Boston, Mass. (Rich, May & Bilodeau, Boston, Mass., Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, Chester J. Straub, New York City, Local Counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entered after a bench trial before Judge Charles L. Brieant, Jr. The trial court determined that a $325,-000 note given by plaintiff-appellee Frequency Electronics, Inc., to National Radio Company, Inc., and subsequently acquired by defendant-appellant Lerner was non-enforceable. It also ordered, after finding that Lerner defrauded the appellee, a partial rescission of the transaction in which the note was originally exchanged.

The facts in this case are set forth in the thorough opinion of the trial court which is reported at 422 F.Supp. 609.

We find that Judge Brieant’s determination that the appellant Lerner, under the applicable standards of Massachusetts law, defrauded appellee Frequency Electronics, rests on findings of fact supported by the record which we cannot properly characterize as clearly erroneous. The remedy ordered below was a partial rescission of the transaction. In view of this appropriate disposition of the case, we do not reach and do not comment upon Frequency’s other claimed defenses to the note and their availability under Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

The belated motion of the appellant to certify questions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was denied, in our discretion, on the oral argument in this appeal.
#### DELAWARE SECURITIES CORPORATION, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Addie W. KOHN et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. Term, 1936.

R. C. Alley, of West Palm Beach, and Loftin, Stokes & Calkins, of Miami, for the motion.

PER CURIAM.

Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02657-WYD-KLM

HOMER K. WARNER,

BETTY S. WARNER, and

COREY WARNER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Div. of City Group, Inc., 

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Notice of Its Unilateral

Submission of Proposed Scheduling Order and Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Incurred as a Result of Plaintiffs’ Failures to Follow the Federal Rules and This

Court’s January 4, 2012 Order [Docket No. 17; Filed February 17, 2012] (the “Motion”).

The Motion does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. First, the Court reminds the

parties that Rule 7.1A. requires meaningful negotiations; thus, the Rule is not satisfied by

one party sending the other party a single email, letter or voicemail. See Hoelzel v. First

Select Corp., 214 F.R.D. 634, 636 (D. Colo. 2003). Second, defense counsel’s submission

of the proposed scheduling order was admirable and not required by the Local Rules of this

District. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 (“Plaintiff shall prepare the proposed scheduling order,

unless counsel or the pro se parties have agreed otherwise.”). However, defense counsel

could not reasonably have incurred substantial additional time or expense to his client in

doing so than would reasonably have been incurred in conferring with Plaintiffs’ counsel

and providing Defendant’s portions of the proposed scheduling order. Defense counsel

took on very little extra work in submitting the proposed scheduling order. An award of

attorney’s fees is not justified in these circumstances. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel is reminded of his obligations pursuant to the applicable Federal

and Local Rules and forewarned that future failures to meet those obligations may result

in the imposition of sanctions.

Dated: February 21, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02657-WYD-KLM Document 20 Filed 02/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### W. R. THOMAS, as Superintendent of Public Instruction, et al., Appellants, v. Seymour SILVERMAN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Feb. 4, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.