alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O . P D
- 0 5 7 8
- 1 8

R O B V I A L E N E I C E S I M P S O N , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S
O N S T A T E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E T W E L F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

A N D E R S O N C O U N T Y
K E L L E R , P . J . , f

i l e d a c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n . I n its brief, the State contends that “re s judicata should prec lude a defe ndant from raising an[] aff irmative defe nse when they have pled true to the same offe nse in a previous probation revoc ation hear ing.” A defe ndant’s plea of true i s i rr el ev an t to the doctrines of res judicata and collater al estoppel, which are implicated only by a trial court’s decisions and not by the conduct of the parties. As to the finding of true, I ag ree with the Court that such a finding in a probation revoc ation hear ing

can have no prec lusive eff ect on the litigation of self-de fense at a criminal trial beca use the State’s burden of proof in a revoca tion hearing (pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e) is less than i ts burden onSIMP SON CONCURRENCE — 2

the issue of self-de fense at a criminal trial (bey ond a rea sonable doubt). This holding applies even 1 when there is only one basis for revoca tion, so we need not addre ss whether the fin d i n g o f true at issue here (which w as one of sever al finding s) was e ssential to the judgme nt. 2
I concur in the Court’s judgme nt. Filed: January

15, 2020 Publis h

The State incor

rec tly char acte rizes self-de fense as an “ aff irmative defense” when in fac t 1 it is a “def

ense.” See T E X
. P E N A L C O D E §§ 2.03(d) (State must disprove a defe nse bey ond a rea sonable doubt), 2.04(d) (d ef endant must prove aff

irmative defe nse by preponde ranc e of the evidenc e), 9.02 (justifications under Ch 9 are defe nses), 9.31 (self- defe nse i s a justification), 9.32 (same)

. We also need not addre ss whether issue prec lusion could apply to an issue that was in fac t

2 an af firmative de fense

.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2173]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Inventions Available for License

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of inventions available for license.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy hereby announces that the following 
invention is available for license, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207-
209: U.S. Patent Application No. 12/401,033, entitled ``Ground 
Potential Rise Monitor.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette R. Reimers, Office of the 
Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual 
Property, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 6F-067, 
1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585; Telephone (202) 586-
3815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 35 U.S.C. 207 authorizes licensing of 
government owned inventions. Implementing regulations are contained in 
37 CFR 404.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2010.
Paul A. Gottlieb,
Assistant General Counsel for Technology Transfer and Intellectual 
Property.
[FR Doc. 2010-2173 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Order entered September 6, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01116-CV

CHRISTY HAYES A/K/A CHRISTY MAYO, Appellant

V.

MAYLON S. JOHNSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-01963-2017

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s September 5, 2018 second motion for extension of time to 

file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to September 21, 2018. We caution 

appellee that further requests for extension will be disfavored.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
#### MEDLIN v. FYCO, INC.

No. 443P00

Case below: 139 N.C. App. 534

Petition by defendant (Fyco, Inc.) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 February 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 periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund V (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



This Certification has not been, and shall
not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                      |  |  |  |                                                           
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 13, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Daniel L. Stephenson                                  
|                      |  |  |  | Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner Rancon Realty Fund V
#### CYNTHIA CURETON v. MANUEL C. GUELHO AND WINFRIED R. KLUSNER.

July 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit
      32.2







**CERTIFICATION
      BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF**


**THE
      MIDDLEBY CORPORATION**


**PURSUANT
      TO RULE 13A-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**





This
      certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





I,
      Timothy J. FitzGerald, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (principal
      financial officer) of The Middleby Corporation (the “Registrant”), certify, to
      the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended June 28, 2008 of the Registrant (the “Report”),
      that:





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





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Registrant.





Date:
      August 7, 2008





/s/
      Timothy J.
      FitzGerald


Timothy
      J. FitzGerald
News United States Air Force
 Active duty, Guard, Reserve integrate during Checkered Flag 17-1Published Dec. 19, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Alex Fox Echols III
                        
                        
                        325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                At Checkered Flag 17-1, legacy and fifth-generation fighter jet integration created aggressive and advanced training opportunities; but another integration happened just below the surface, which ensured multiple Air Force components received the same vital learning opportunities.Active-duty, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard Airmen from around the country worked together through total force integration at Checkered Flag from Dec. 5-16. They prepared to rapidly respond to any current, real-world conflict, and trained for the future of air dominance.“The Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard components bring the same capabilities to Checkered Flag that they do to the entire Air Force each and every day,” said Col. Randy Cason, the 44th Fighter Group commander and Checkered Flag 17-1 Air Expeditionary Wing commander. “They bring experience, continuity, and a high degree of technical and tactical expertise.”During the exercise, numerous pilots and Tyndall’s maintenance team – which about 25 percent are reservists -- brought their knowledge, experience and proficiency to the fight.“A lot of times these Airmen don’t even know whether someone working around them is a reservist or active duty. We are all just in the fight together,” said Capt. Matthew Goldey, the 44th Fighter Group maintenance operations officer and Checkered Flag 17-1 Air Expeditionary Maintenance Group commander. “We are all one team.”With budgetary restraints being an ever-present Air Force concern, total force integration ensures that U.S. airpower is not diminished while being fiscally mindful.“Total force integration is an existential requirement for the Air Force while in constrained budgetary environments,” Cason said. “We have a lot to do, but we also must be good stewards of the U.S. taxpayer’s money. (This strategy) allows us to ensure mission success at a reduced cost.”Day-to-day operations and large-scale exercises like Checkered Flag ensure all components of the Air Force are ready for the fight.“The Air Force benefits from everyone being capable of accomplishing the mission,” Cason said. “Reserve and Guard members being able to participate with the active-duty Air Force members means that we are all trained to the same standard, equally capable, performing the same mission and able to integrate and operate as a team.”Reserve 



total force 



F-22 



ACC 



guard 



Tyndall AFB 



Checkered Flag
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Vernon HENDERSON, Midland Insurance Company—Surety, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 9304.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.

March 20, 1973.

*32John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

Jay White, Rolla, for defendants-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Midland Insurance Company, as surety for Vernon Henderson, principal [defendant in a pending- criminal case], entered into a bond to the State of Missouri in the amount of $25,000.00 conditioned on the appearance of Henderson in the Circuit Court of Phelps County, Missouri. When Henderson failed to appear for his trial the court ordered the bond forfeited. Pursuant to Rule 32.12, V.A.M.R., the State filed its motion for judgment.

Thereafter, following notice, a hearing on the State’s motion was conducted and the following entry made: “Surety on forfeited bond of defendant files answer to Motion for Judgment and ask (sic) for continuance of said Motion for Judgment. Motion for Judgment on forfeiture of defendant’s appearance in Penal sum of $25,-000.00 sustained and Judgment accordingly.” Appellant-surety’s motion for new trial was overruled and this appeal followed.

Although neither of the parties have raised the question, we are instantly confronted with the issue of whether we have appellate jurisdiction. Unless the quoted entry constitutes an appealable judgment we do not have jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.

In two recent decisions of this court [Williams v. Williams, 480 S.W.2d 525 (Mo.App.1972), and Herndon v. Ford, 470 S.W.2d 168 (Mo.App.1971)] we were faced with similiar entries and after reviewing the applicable statutes, rules and authorities, concluded they did not rise to the stature of *final judgments*and consequently we were without jurisdiction to entertain the appeals.

It would serve no useful purpose to reiterate the principles enunciated in *Williams*and *Herndon*but suggest that time, effort and money could be devoted to more useful pursuits by a review of these cases. And, *“ . . .*[W]hile the clerk may properly receive assistance from counsel, if needed, and *while counsel might he well advised to check the record, the primary responsibility for the entry of a judgment is upon the clerk.”*Byrd v. McGinnis, 299 S.W.2d 455, 460 (Mo.1957). (Our emphasis)

We again rule that such a minute or docket entry does not constitute a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken and for lack of a proper judgment the appeal is dismissed.

All concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel 

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00362-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. DALE JOHNSON,

2. DONALD BEVERLY,

3. RONALD BENJAMIN,

4. JIMMY HUTCHINSON,

5. VINCENT JACKSON,

6. JERROLD MINNEY, and

7. SCOTT GOLDBERG,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Unopposed Motion for

Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) filed September 9, 2013. Having

reviewed the motion and being otherwise advised in the premises, I find that good and

sufficient cause supports the same. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Government’s Unopposed Motion for Protective Order

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1) (ECF No. 249) is GRANTED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Special Agent’s personnel records at issue shall

only be used in defending this case; that such records may be disclosed only to the

Defendants and their attorneys; that if copies are made, the Defendants’ attorneys shall

maintain custody of such copies, and shall not reproduce or disseminate them; and that

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 254 Filed 09/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

any material provided pursuant to this Order shall be returned to the Government at the

completion of the case. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that in the event defense counsel seeks to introduce such

materials for impeachment or for other purposes at any proceeding, or seeks to make

reference to the contents of the materials in a pleading, that counsel first seek leave of

Court through an in camera submission prior to doing so as to allow the Government

adequate time to respond.

Dated: September 9, 2013

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

Wiley Y. Daniel

Senior United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00362-WYD Document 254 Filed 09/09/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5281]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2191]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee, Alturas, California 
96101, USDA Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343) the Modoc National 
Forest's Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee will meet Monday, 
February 22, 2010 and March 8, 2010 in Alturas, California 96101, for a 
business meeting. The meetings are open to the public.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The business meeting on February 22, and 
March 8, 2010 will begin at 4 p.m., at the Modoc National Forest 
Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, California 96101. 
Agenda topics will include reviewing project proposals and to conduct 
business that meet the intent of Public Law 110-343. Time will also be 
set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Hudson, Forest Supervisor and 
Designated Federal Officer, at (530) 233-8700; or Resource Advisory 
Committee Coordinator, Stephen Riley at (530) 233-8771.

Tom Hudson,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-2191 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### Vincent B. LAW, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46253.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1972.

Tim K. Banner, Dallas, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*321OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the unlawful possession of narcotic paraphernalia; the punishment, two years imprisonment.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty before a jury; filed motions requesting that he be granted probation and that the jury assess his punishment.

The only ground of error raised by the appellant is that “The appellant’s application for probation and plea for probation were unduly and unfairly prejudiced by the statements of the prosecutor regarding the facilities of the Texas Department of Corrections, made during the punishment arguments.”

This ground of error is based upon the following:

> “(Assistant District Attorney) : the Texas Department of Corrections is well, well stocked to help a man like this. It’s under the care of Dr. Beto, a former—

> “(Defense counsel): (interposing) Your Honor, I object to his going into matters outside the record.

> “THE COURT: Overruled.

> “(Assistant District Attorney) : They have a psychiatric staff there—

> “THE COURT: (interposing) Sustained, sustain your objection to the last statement.

> “(Defense counsel): I ask that the jury be instructed to disregard it.

> “THE COURT: The jury is to disregard it.

> “You have less than a minute . . .”

The trial court, after overruling counsel’s objection, promptly changed his first ruling. We interpret the defense attorney’s request and the court’s instruction for the jury to disregard the “last statement,” to include all of the argument of the assistant district attorney, of which complaint is now made. The court instructed the jury to disregard the argument and the appellant asked for no further relief. Nothing is presented for review. Craig v. State, 480 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Powell v. State, 475 S.W.2d 934 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); and Williams v. State, 427 S.W.2d 868 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2197 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 358
113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2197

   To repeal certain requirements regarding newspaper advertising of 
                      Senate stationery contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 1, 2014

 Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Roberts) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Rules and Administration

                             April 10, 2014

               Reported by Mr. Schumer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal certain requirements regarding newspaper advertising of 
                      Senate stationery contracts.

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

SECTION 1. SENATE STATIONERY PROCEDURES.

    (a) In General.--Sections 65, 66, 67, and 68 of the Revised 
Statutes (2 U.S.C. 6569, 6570, 6571) are repealed.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The fifth paragraph after the paragraph 
under the side heading ``For contingent expenses, namely:'' under the 
subheading ``senate.'' under the heading ``LEGISLATIVE.'' of the Act of 
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 596, chapter 392; 2 U.S.C. 6572), is amended by 
striking ``sections, sixty-five, sixty six, sixty-seven, sixty-eight, 
and sixty-nine,'' and inserting ``section 69''.
                                                       Calendar No. 358

113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2197

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To repeal certain requirements regarding newspaper advertising of 
                      Senate stationery contracts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 10, 2014

                       Reported without amendment
```
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT





THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
is made this 17th day of
December, 2008 by and between EAU TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), and WADE
R. BRADLEY,an
individual resident of the State of Georgia (the “Employee”)





BACKGROUND





WHEREAS, Company and Employee
previously entered into an employment agreement dated October 24, 2006 (the
“Employment
Agreement”); and





WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the
Employment Agreement to comply with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the “Code”).





NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration
often dollars and
other for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as
follows:





1.           Section
(i) of Schedule 1 attached to the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows:





(i)           “Permanent
Disability” shall mean (i) the inability of the Employee to engage in any
substantial gainful activity with respect to the Employee’s duties with the
Company by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment
that can be expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a
continuous period of not less than twelve (12) months; (ii) the receipt by the
Employee of income replacement benefits for a period of not less than three (3)
months under an accident and health plan covering employees of the Company by
reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be
expected to result in death or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than twelve (12) months; or (iii) the Employee is determined to be
disabled by the Social Security Administration.




2.           In
all other respects, the provisions of the Employment Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect.













[Remainder
of page intentionally left blank.]







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have executed and delivered this Agreement on the date set forth
above.





COMPANY:
                EAU
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.By:
              /s/ Karl
      HellmanPrint
      Name: Karl HellmanTitle:            Director


EMPLOYEE:By:
                /s/ Wade
      R. BradleyWade
      R. Bradley