alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,175

CHRISTIAN OLSEN, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 07-04601-CRF-361

IN THE 361ST DISTRICT COURT

BRAZOS COUNTY

KELLER, P.J., filed a concurring opinion. 

Issues fifteen and sixteen involve a trial judge’s erroneous application of a rule of evidence

to exclude relevant testimony. The erroneous application of a rule of evidence is normally

considered non-constitutional error, subject to a harm analysis under Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 44.2(b). In this case, however, I believe it is appropriate to employ a constitutional harm

analysis under Rule 44.2(a). I write separately to explain why this is so.

The trial judge believed that Dr. Vandiver lacked the proper qualifications, and so he
OLSEN CONCURRENCE — 2

excluded her testimony. If the trial judge had been correct, exclusion of the evidence would have

been proper under Texas Rule of Evidence 702. Dr. Vandiver was qualified, though, so excluding

her testimony was error under Rule 702. 

Not every violation of a state evidentiary rule that results in the exclusion of relevant

evidence constitutes a constitutional violation. In non-capital cases, the standard for determining 1

whether the exclusion of such evidence constitutes a constitutional violation is whether “the

evidence forms such a vital portion of the case that exclusion effectively precludes the defendant

from presenting a defense.” But the Eighth Amendment requires that the sentencer in a death- 2

penalty case be permitted to consider any factor relating to the character of the defendant or the

circumstances of the crime that would mitigate against the imposition of a death sentence. And 3

under the Eighth Amendment, the threshold for relevance of such evidence is low. Because of 4

Eighth Amendment considerations, then, a constitutional harm analysis must apply to the erroneous

exclusion of relevant mitigating evidence that a defendant seeks to offer at the punishment phase of

a death-penalty case.

5

 Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). 1

 Id. at 665. 2

 Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 318-19 (1989); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 3

110-12 (1982). 

 Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004). 4

The keyassumption is that the evidence was in fact admissible under state rules of evidence

5

but was erroneously excluded. The situation would be different if the evidence was in fact

inadmissible under a state rule of evidence. See Williams v. State, 273 S.W.3d 200, 232-33 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (assuming, without deciding, that constitutional principles in Potier apply at the

punishment phase of a capital murder trial, concluding that the trial court did not err in excluding

(continued...)
OLSEN CONCURRENCE — 3

With these comments, I concur in the Court’s judgment.

Filed: April 25, 2012

Do Not Publish

(...continued)

evidence under the rule against hearsay, and concluding that admission of evidence was not

constitutionally required because it was not vital to the defendant’s defense).
No. 87-6439.

#### Nicolau *v.*Muresanu.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Goergen, Chairmanand Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except for the matters set forth in PartII – Item 5 of this Quarterly Report; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ Robert B. Goergen                |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert B. Goergen                    |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | December 16, 2004               |

 

This certification is made solely for thepurpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard containedtherein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEON ALFORD.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 227

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL RITTER.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
O rder filed June 16 , 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____


### No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 130

- C V

_____ _

_____



### TERESA SHUMSKIE , Appellant

V.
TRINA FINNELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 441st District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV56097

O R D E R
On May 27, 2022, Appellant , Teresa Shumskie, filed a motion in this court
pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. She request ed that
this court (1) issue emergency temporary order s to prevent disbursement of money
held in the registry of the trial court and (2) vacate the trial court’s supersedeas orders
and rule on the merits of Appellant’s request for a supersedeas bond

. See T E X

. R.

A PP

. P . 24.4. Pursuant to Appellant’s request, w e issue d an order granting a

temporary stay. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 24.4(c).2 The parties have now reached an agreement regarding supersedeas, the funds
held in the registry of the trial court, and the enforcement of the trial court’s
judgment . Furthermore , th e trial court has signed an agreed order effectuating the
parties’ agreement. Appellant has notified this court that the agreed order moots her

Rule 24.4 motion

. Accordingly, we vacate our May 31, 2022 order granting a
temporary stay, and we dismiss as moot Appellant’s Emergency Rule 24.4 Motion
for Temporary Orders and for Review of Trial Court Supersedeas Rulings.

PER CURIAM

June 16 , 2022

Panel consis ts of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter , J., and W ill iams , J.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 866 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to extend the coverage of the Federal 

prohibition against stalking in order to provide protection to friends 

and co-workers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2017 

Ms. MENG (for herself, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. KEATING, Mr. 

ISSA, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CICILLINE, and Mr. ROYCE of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to extend the coverage of the Federal prohibition against stalking in order 

to provide protection to friends and co-workers, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Expanded Stalking 

5 Protections Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 866 IH

1 SEC. 2. STALKING. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2261A of title 18, United 

3 States Code, is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘Whoever’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) 

5 IN GENERAL.—Whoever’’; 

6 (2) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by striking ‘‘or’’; 

7 (3) in paragraph (1)(A)(iii), by striking ‘‘or’’ 

8 after the semicolon; 

9 (4) by adding at the end of paragraph (1)(A) 

10 the following: 

11 ‘‘(iv) a friend of that person; or 

12 ‘‘(v) a co-worker of that person; or’’; 

13 and 

14 (5) by adding at the end of the following: 

15 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

16 ‘‘(1) CO-WORKER.—The term ‘co-worker’ means 

17 a person with whom one has a work relationship, 

18 without regard to any hierarchy within the organiza19 tion. 

20 ‘‘(2) FRIEND.—The term ‘friend’ means a per21 son with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, 

22 exclusive of intimate or family relations.’’. 

23 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 2261A, as 

24 amended by subsection (a), is further amended— 

25 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘or (iii)’’ 

26 and inserting ‘‘(iii), (iv), or (v)’’; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 866 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ‘‘or (iii)’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘(iii), (iv), or (v)’’; and 

3 (3) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘or (iii)’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘(iii), (iv), or (v)’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an

order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir.

R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/25/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN J. ROSCOE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES E. SCHOENBERGER,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 95-2270

(D.C. No. CIV-93-682-M)

(Dist. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the

briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R.

34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Benjamin J. Roscoe filed this pro se action in Metropolitan Court
-2-

in Bernalillo County, New Mexico against a federal employee alleging

defamation, interference with business, violation of constitutional rights,

and false accusation of crimes. Defendant removed the action to federal

district court and filed a motion to dismiss for failure to effect service,

which the court granted. Mr. Roscoe appeals, and we affirm.

Where service of process is attempted prior to removal of an action to

federal court, state law determines whether service was valid. 4A Charles

A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1082 (2d

ed. 1987). Mr. Roscoe alleges that service was perfected under N.M. R.

Civ. P. (Metro. Cts.) 3-202 (Michie 1995 Cum. Supp.). Under Rule 3-202

(E) “[a] summons and complaint may be served upon a defendant . . . by

mailing a copy . . . together with [an] acknowledgement . . . . [However,]

[i]f no acknowledgement . . . is received by the sender . . . service . . . shall

be made . . . in the manner prescribed by Paragraph F.” If service is made

by mail, the returned acknowledgment must be filed with the court. N.M.

R. Civ. P. (Metro Cts.) 3-202 (G).

Although Mr. Roscoe alleged that he mailed a copy of the complaint

and summons to defendant, he did not file a returned acknowledgment with

the state court, nor did he attempt to perfect service under Rule 3-202 (F). 

Accordingly, we agree with the district court that his action should be
1

 We note that Mr. Roscoe has not attempted to perfect service under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4, and we decline to consider facts and issues he raises for the

first time on appeal. See Oyler v. Allenbrand, 23 F.3d 292, 299 n.8 (10th

Cir. 1994).

-3-

dismissed. 1

 

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. The mandate shall

issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
585 A.2d 352

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS E. FORSYTHE.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. THOMAS LEROY TRIPP.

December 8, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ZARCO HOTELS INCORPORATED,

Appellant

v.

HOLLYWOOD CASINOS, LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2019-2401

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

91203686.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KAMRAN FATTAHI, Law Offices of Kamran Fattahi, 

Sherman Oaks, CA, argued for appellant. 

 HARA K. JACOBS, Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia, PA, 

argued for appellee. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Case: 19-2401 Document: 63 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2021
 PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

November 9, 2021

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-2401 Document: 63 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2021
Document

Exhibit 10.18


Weber-Stephen Nordic, Tulegatan 3, 113 58 Stockholm






						
	Steffen Hahn
[ADDRESS]	Weber-Stephen Nordic
Tulegatan 3
113 58 Stockholm
Phone +46 8 525 024 24
www.weber.com
		
		Stockholm, 7 December 2021






Adendum to contract of March 1, 2020.
    
Dear Steffen


We are happy to offer you the role as President EMEA, effective as of Dec 1, 2021.
The annual compensation will change Dec 1, 2021, the base salary will be sek 4,128,000 and the annual bonus at 75%.


						
	Long-Term Incentive:	You will be eligible to receive long-term incentive awards pursuant to the terms of the Weber Inc. Omnibus Incentive Plan (the “Omnibus Plan”) (or any successor plan thereto). Long-term incentive awards will be granted at the discretion of the Compensation Committee.







Congratulations with your new role, I am looking forward to our continued cooperation.






Best Regards, 






/s/ Chris Scherzinger                    /s/ Steffen Hahn        
Chris Scherzinger                        Steffen Hahn
Chief Executive Officer








			
	


Weber-Stephen Nordic | Tulegatan 3 |  113 58 Stockholm 
VAT SE516402999201
Tel +46 8 525 024 24
Email: service-se@weberstephen.com | www.weber.com
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                           OF THE UNITED STATES CODE,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CTD Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004,  as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  C.E.  Rick
Strattan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ C.E. Rick Strattan
___________________________________
C.E. Rick Strattan
Chief Financial Officer
May 11, 2004
Exhibit 35.1




Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE




The undersigned, Mark Kaczynski, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:




(1)           The undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the period June 18, 2014 through March 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1999, as amended and as supplemented by the 2014-A SUBI Servicing Supplement, dated as of June 18, 2014 (as supplemented, the “Agreement”), by and among Nissan-Infiniti LT, as titling trust, NILT Trust, as UTI beneficiary, and the Company, as servicer, to be conducted under his supervision; and




(2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.




This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 26th day of June, 2015.




/s/ Mark Kaczynski_________________


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Dozier et al., Appellees, *v.*Keller et al., Appellants.

(No. 2133

Decided January 27, 1944.)

*Mr. F. W. Andrews,*for appellees.

*Messrs. Blumenstiel, Strong & Blumenstiel,*for appellants.

Montgomery, P. J.

The verdict of the jury in this case was not manifestly against the weight of the evidence. The evidence to sustain it was clear and convincing.

Of course, a fraudulent representation must be of aii existing fact in order to justify an action in tort for damages sustained by reason of an acting upon such representation.

However, the mental attitude and the then intent of the one who makes the representation are existing facts and the only difficulty is one of proof. See *American Hosiery Co.*v. *Baker,*18 C. C., 604, 10 C. D., 219; 19 Ohio Jurisprudence, 359, Section 53; 26 Corpus Juris, 1093, Section 26.

In the instant case the conclusion is inescapable that defendant Keller, acting for himself and as authorized agent of the other defendants, did solicit and accept the check for $535 — the only asset of the plaintiffs— under the expressed representation that he would hold *322it until it should be learned whether the remainder of the $4,000 could be raised by the plaintiffs to purchase the real estate in question, and, if such remainder could not be realized, the check would be returned to them.

The further conclusion is likewise inescapable that • the plaintiffs relied upon this representation, parted with possession of the check, and were damaged to the extent of its value.

Here there is proof of existing facts, to wit, the mental attitude and the intent of Keller not to keep his agreement, and the falsity of his promise. He did not hold the check until it could be learned whether the needed balance could be raised and of course he did not and could not thereafter return it. He cashed the check early — the first banking day after its receipt.

The defendants do not complain of the charge of the court. In argument their counsel expressed approval of it. They complain, in fact, only that the judgment of the lower court is against the weight of the evidence and against the law. We can not and do not so find.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

.Sherick and Putnam, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S MARCH 31, 1997 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,511
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,427
<PP&E>                                         136,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                (54,532)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,340
<BONDS>                                        111,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (64,581)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,203
<SALES>                                         15,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,723
<CGS>                                           18,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,119
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,536)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,536)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee, NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee: Review of F, K, and R03, Applications.                    

*Date:*                         October 21-22, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Palace Hotel, 2 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA 94105.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raj K. Krishnaraju, PhD, MS, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Inst of Dental & Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Dr. Rm 4AN 32J, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-4864,                         *kkrishna@nidcr.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the intramural research review cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 5, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-25611 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P