alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Timothy Mark HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

Nos. 47151-47154.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 3, 1973.

*140No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Hut-tash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

These appeals are taken from two convictions for robbery by assault (Causes No. 47,153 & 47,154), one conviction for possession of narcotic paraphernalia (Cause No. 47,152), and one conviction for possession of marihuana (Cause No. 47,151). In each case, the court' assessed the punishment at 5 years.

After waiver of trial by jury in each case the appellant entered pleas of guilty before the court and, by agreement, all four cases were heard at the same time.

No appellate brief has been filed in any of these cases and there does not appear to be any question of indigency.

We do note a fundamental error which should be considered “in the interest of justice.” Article 40.09 § 13, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

The evidence offered reflects that the offenses of possession of narcotic paraphernalia and possession of marihuana arose out of the same transaction at the same place and time. Under the facts presented, the two charges constitute one offense. Therefore, we conclude that since both offenses grew out of the same transaction the doctrine of carving and the rationale of Thompson v. State, 495 S.W.2d 221 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), controls. See also Hancock v. State, 495 S.W.2d 222 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Jones v. State, 482 S.W.2d 194 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Price v. State, 475 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Duckett v. State, 454 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). See also Ex parte Easley, 490 S.W.2d 570 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).

Only one of these two convictions can stand. It matters little which conviction stands since the same punishment was as-: sessed in each case and all the sentences were permitted to run concurrently. Thompson v. State, supra.

We do note that evidence was first presented on the possession of narcotic paraphernalia and that case was, in effect, completed before evidence as to the possession of marihuana was presented and con-1 sidered.

Therefore, the conviction in Cause No. 47,151 for possession of marihuana is hereby set aside and the judgment is reversed.

Causes No. 47,152, 47,153, and 47,154 are hereby affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Ernst Radt, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Queens County,

April 8, 1957.

*717
      *Goldman, Levitt <fs Hyman*for Frederick Eva Eadt, petitioner.

*Albert Buschmann,*special guardian for Evelyn Eadt, infant.

Anthony P. Savarese, S.

In this probate proceeding a determination is sought as to the adequacy of the decedent’s provision for, or mention of, his after-born child to avoid the possible right of said child under section 26 of the Decedent Estate Law.

Decedent died on March 4, 1957, being survived by his wife and an infant born after the execution of the propounded paper. The second paragraph of this paper is a bequest of the residuary estate to decedent’s wife, the petitioner herein. By the third paragraph it is provided that, in the event of petitioner’s predecease, the residuary estate shall pass to decedent’s “ descendants.”

In *McLean*v. *McLean*(207 N. Y. 365), it was held that mention of an after-born child as a class and in terms broad enough to include a specific child was sufficient compliance with section 26. (See, also, *Holbrook*v. *Holbrook,*193 App. Div. 286, affd. 230 N. Y. 600.) In these cases, the class deemed to include after-born children was designated by the term *“*issue.” While no precedent is to be found on the sufficiency of a designation of the class “ descendants,” the court believes the above-cited cases to be controlling on this point. The terms *“*issue ” and “ descendants ” are coextensive and interchangeable. *(Matter of Libby,*206 Misc. 723; *Matter of Holyland,*116 N. Y. S. 2d 628; 2 Davids on New York Law of Wills, p. 1109.)

Submit decree admitting the propounded paper to probate. Thereafter a supplemental decree should be submitted herein construing the will accordingly, on notice.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


                        PHYSICIANS RESOURCE GROUP, INC.
                     RESIGNATION AND ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

     DALLAS, TEXAS - March 17, 2000 - Physicians Resource Group, Inc. ("PRG" or
the "Company") today announced that David Meyer, M.D., Chairman of the Board,
and John Shepherd, M.D. have resigned as members of the Board of Directors of
the Company.  Immediately prior to their resignations, Drs. Meyer and Shepherd
chose Michael W. Yeary, the Company's President/Chief Restructuring Officer, to
serve as a Director of the Company.  Mr. Yeary shall serve as the sole Director
of the Company.  In addition, PRG announced that Lucius E. Burch, III, David
Dulaney, M.D. and Mark Rosenberg had resigned their roles as senior consultants
to the Board of Directors.  "On behalf of the entire Company, I want to express
our appreciation for the leadership and considerable accomplishments of these
individuals over the past 16 months," Michael Yeary said.

     PRG is a debtor-in-possession in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the
Northern District of Texas and is a provider of physician practice management
services that provides management services to eye care practices and operates
ambulatory surgery centers.  Contact: Michael Yeary, President/Chief
Restructuring Officer (972) 892-7324.

     Certain statements in this news release consist of forward-looking
statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  As such, they involve risks and uncertainties as
detailed from time to time in the reports filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 1997.  When used herein,
the words "intends," "expects," "plans," "estimates," "projects," "believes,"
"anticipates" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking
statements.

                                       1
**Exhibit 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Juan J. Román, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Triple-S ManagementCorporation (the Corporation), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:
3.  The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the annual period ended December 31,2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and; 4.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.         Date: March 23, 2005   By: /s/ Juan J. Román               Juan J. Román       *Vice President of Finance*       *and Chief Financial Officer*
EXHIBIT 32.2 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BLUEGATE CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 AND SECTION 1350 OF 18
U.S.C. 63.

I, Steven M. Plumb, the Chief Financial Officer of Bluegate Corporation, hereby
certify that Bluegate Corporation's periodic report on Form 10-QSB, for the
period ending September 30, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of
Bluegate Corporation.


Date November 21, 2005                  /s/Steven M. Plumb
                                        ------------------
                                        Steven M. Plumb, CPA
                                        Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Exhibit 10.22 Moty Hermon
[Address Omitted] October 28,2003 Mr. Charles Fust
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc.
516 Paul Morris Drive
Englewood, Florida 34223 Re:
    
    Agreements between SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc. and Moty Hermon
 Dear Charles: Im pleased to enclosed executed copies of our two letter agreements, namely my
agreement with SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc. (SinoFresh) dated October 21, 2003
and my agreement with you dated October 22, 2003. Pursuant to our discussions, this letter is to confirm our understanding that
these agreements are delivered based upon your commitment and our agreement,
personally and on behalf of SinoFresh, that all shares I may own in either
SinoFresh or the European venture SFSH-Europe will be freely tradable and
without restrictions on transferability on and after October 21, 2005. I would appreciate if you would execute a copy of this letter and return to me. I look forward to a long and mutually successful relationship. Thank you. Sincerely,/s/ Moty Hermon
 Reviewed and Agreed to by: /s/ Charles A. FustCharles A. Fust, personally andon behalf of SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc. cc: Richard Bernstein, Esq.
#### Burton ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Wayne F. MORGAN et al., Appellees.

No. 17464.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Nov. 16, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1973.

Kelsey & Wood, and Curtis M. Loveless, Denton, for appellant.

Lancaster Smith, Dallas, for appellees.

LANGDON, Justice.

Suit was instituted on September 5, 1972, by the plaintiff, appellant, in the County Court at Law of Denton County, Texas, to recover damages incurred in a collision. After the case proceeded to trial before a jury the defendants, appellees, moved for a directed verdict after appellant rested his case. The appellant was then permitted by the court to put on additional testimony, after which he moved for a non-suit. The court first granted and then denied appellant’s motion for a non-suit and then entered a directed verdict for defendants, ap-pellees, herein. This appeal is from the action of the court in refusing to grant a non-suit.

We reverse and render.

Rule 164, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that, “At any time before the jury has retired, the plaintiff may take a non-suit, but he shall not thereby prejudice the right of an adverse party to be heard on his claim for affirmative relief. When the case is tried by the judge, such non-suit *32may be taken at any time before the decision is announced.”

In the case at bar the appellees did not seek any affirmative relief.

It is settled law in Texas that when a suit is tried before a jury and the motion is made for an instructed verdict that the rule governing non-suit is the same as that applied in a case tried before the court without a jury, i. e., that non-suit may be taken at any time before decision is announced. Smith v. Columbian Carbon Co., 196 S.W.2d 660 (Beaumont Civ.App., 1946, reversed on other grounds at 145 Tex. 478, 198 S.W.2d 727).

The rule in a case tried before a judge is liberally construed in favor of the right to take a non-suit. Luck v. Welch, 243 S.W.2d 589 (Fort Worth Civ.App., 1951, ref., n. r. e.).

In the case at bar the appellant exercised his right for a non-suit before the announcement of the court’s decision to grant the motion for directed verdict. Kinney v. Wiley, 224 S.W.2d 348 (Galveston Civ.App., 1949, no writ hist.). See also 20 Tex.Jur.2d 178, Sec. 3, et seq., and the cases cited thereunder. Also in this connection see Vol. 4, McDonald Texas Civil Practice (1971 Revised Volume) § 17.16.1, et seq., and the cases there cited.

Since the record in this case reflects that the appellant exercised his right to take a non-suit prior to any decision being announced by the court the action of the trial court refusing to grant the motion for non-suit is reversed and judgment here rendered for the appellant.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2127 

To amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 relative to the powers of 

the Department of Justice Inspector General. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2014 

Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Mr. GRASSLEY, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Inspector General Act of 1978 relative to 

the powers of the Department of Justice Inspector General. 

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 ‘‘Inspector General Em5 powerment Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVESTIGATIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

7 PERSONNEL. 

8 Section 8E of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 

9 U.S.C. App.) is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (b)— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2127 IS

1 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘and 

2 paragraph (3)’’; 

3 (B) by striking paragraph (3); 

4 (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and 

5 (5) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and 

6 (D) in paragraph (4), as redesignated, by 

7 striking ‘‘paragraph (4)’’ and inserting ‘‘para8 graph (3)’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘, except with 

10 respect to allegations described in subsection 

11 (b)(3),’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1
(214) 969-1700


                                October 20, 2000


Pure Resources, Inc.
500 West Illinois
Midland, Texas 79701

     Re:  Registration Statement on Form S-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     We have acted as counsel for Pure Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), in connection with the registration under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), of an aggregate of 6,608,343 shares of
the Company's Common Stock, $.01 par value per share (the "Shares"), for
issuance under the Pure Resources, Inc. 1999 Incentive Plan (the "Plan").

     We have participated in the preparation of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement"), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, relating to the registration of the Shares under the
Securities Act.

     In connection with the foregoing, we have examined the originals or copies,
certified or otherwise authenticated to our satisfaction, of the resolutions of
the Company's Board of Directors establishing the Plan, the Registration
Statement and such corporate records of the Company, certificates of officers of
the Company, and other instruments and documents as we have deemed necessary to
require as a basis for the opinion hereinafter expressed.  As to various
questions of fact material to such opinion, we have, where relevant facts were
not independently established, relied upon statements of officers of the Company
whom we believe to be responsible.

     Based upon the foregoing and in reliance thereon, we advise you that in our
opinion the Shares, when issued and delivered in accordance with the provisions
of the Plan, will be legally issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

     We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                         Respectfully submitted,



                                         THOMPSON & KNIGHT L.L.P.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS ENRIQUE GONZALEZERAZO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71240

Agency No. A070-938-508

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Enrique Gonzalez-Erazo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying his

FILED

MAY 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71240

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence and will uphold the agency’s determination unless the evidence compels

a contrary conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). We

deny the petition for review.

Gonzalez-Erazo contends that he suffered past persecution when guerrillas

threatened him, and he fears future persecution from gangs. Petitioner testified that

he was not harmed by the guerillas. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that petitioner failed to establish past persecution. See Lim v. INS,

224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, petitioner’s speculative fear of

future gang activity and persecution does not serve as a basis for asylum relief. See

Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008).

Because Gonzalez-Erazo failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he

necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.

See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioner did not establish that it was more likely than not that he will be tortured

by or with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya v.
3 10-71240

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Contrary to Gonzalez-Erazo’s

contention, the BIA provided a sufficient explanation for denying CAT relief.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez-Erazo’s claim that he should be

granted asylum based on humanitarian reasons because he failed to raise that issue

before the BIA, and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See

Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 11, 2008*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.226 Taxes Payable by Businesses** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of Bluegate Corporation; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| 4. | The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: July 23, 2010                                     |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                    |   |
|                                                    |   |
| /s/ Charles E. Leibold                                  |   |
| Charles E. Leibold                                      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer |   |