alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BRIAN METROCAVAGE and SHARY )

METROCAVAGE, )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3388

)

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON )

f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK as )

trustee for the certificate holders of )

CWABS 2004-2005; NATIONSTAR )

MORTGAGE, LLC f/k/a CENTEX )

HOME EQUITY CO., LLC; BANK OF )

AMERICA, N.A. f/k/a BAC HOME )

LOAN SERVICING, L.P.; FIELD )

ASSET SERVICES, INC., )

)

Appellees. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed December 5, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Lon Arend, Judge.

Brian Metrocavage and Shary 

Metrocavage, pro se.

Nancy M. Wallace of Akerman, LLP, 

Tallahassee; William P. Heller of Akerman, 

LLP, Fort Lauderdale; and Eric M. Levine of 

Akerman, LLP, West Palm Beach, for 

Appellee Bank of America.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00129

- CR
Christopher Joseph Downum v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 18

- 5163

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having cons idered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. April 22, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1547 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1547

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 6, 2023

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To direct the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study on the 
costs and benefits of commuter rail passenger transportation involving 
                   transfers, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``One Seat Ride Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY ON COMMUTER SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a 
study identifying the benefits of commuter rail passenger 
transportation and major obstacles to providing commuter rail passenger 
transportation that does not involve a transfer for passengers.
    (b) Requirements.--In conducting the study under subsection (a), 
the Secretary shall--
            (1) consider economic, logistical, and quality of life 
        factors in analyzing the major obstacles to implementing 
        single-seat trips on commuter rail passenger transportation for 
        as many passengers as possible; and
            (2) include in such study an analysis of the costs and 
        benefits with respect to single-seat trips on commuter rail 
        passenger transportation on the New Jersey Transit Raritan 
        Valley line during peak hours and the impact such trips would 
        have on other New Jersey Transit lines.
    (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the study 
required under subsection (a).
    (d) Commuter Rail Passenger Transportation Defined.--In this 
section, the term ``commuter rail passenger transportation'' has the 
meaning given such term in section 24102 of title 49, United States 
Code.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 5, 2023.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
10775.

#### JENKINS *v.*THE STATE.

A conviction of the offense of manufacturing intoxicating liquors was authorized by the evidence.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for manufacture of liquor; from Lee superior court— Judge Littlejohn. June 21, 1919.

*W. G. Martin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jule*Felton; *solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. The defendant was indicted for distilling, manufacturing and making alcoholic, intoxicating, and spirituous liquors, and malted liquor and mixed liquor and beverages, part of same being alcoholic. The jury were authorized, and did find, that the *339defendant had in his house an outfit that had been when assembled, and could be, used to distil whisky, and had in his house beer that is used for distillation; that such beer was intoxicating; and that such concoction at the time it was so found was fermenting in a barrel, over the head of which a quilt was placed; that the still outfit had been in recent use, and 'that “low wine,” or the first run of whisky, had been through the still and pipes. Such evidence, under appropriate charge of the court, was sufficient to authorize a verdict of guilty against the defendant. The trial judge having approved the verdict, and no error of law being assigned which requires a new trial, the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
EX-10.22



 Exhibit 10.22 

English Summary of Finnish language R&D loan agreements TEKES 921/05 dated November 18, 2005 and TEKES 747/08 dated September 11, 2008 (each a
Loan Agreement) by and between The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (the Lender) and Biotie Therapies Corp. (the Borrower). 

 

	 	•	 	Loan Capital: TEKES 921/05: EUR 2.453.000,00 and TEKES 747/08: EUR 564.000,00. 

  

	 	•	 	Term: Ten (10) years. 

  

	 	•	 	Maturity: Capital and interest to be paid annually. 

  

	 	•	 	Interest: Three (3) per cent. lower than the base rate set by the Finnish Ministry of Finance per annum, subject to minimum rate of one (1) per cent. per annum. Applicable penalty interest is the reference rate
in accordance with the Finnish Interest Rate Act plus seven percentage points. 

  

	 	•	 	Repayment of principal: First repayment date on the fifth anniversary of the loan, thereafter repayment of principal over five consecutive years in equal instalments, or a later date, if agreed with the
Lender. 

  

	 	•	 	Acceleration: The Lender may accelerate the loan (i) if the Borrower fails to use the loan proceeds in accordance with the purpose of the loan or if a material adverse event occurs; (ii) the conditions of the
loan are amended by the Finnish Government and the Borrower does not agree to comply with amended terms; (iii) the Borrower fails to repay principal or interest; (iv) the Borrower falls into insolvency or similar proceedings; or (v) the Borrower
fails to comply with the terms of the Loan Agreement. 

  

	 	•	 	Permitted use: The State Treasury may require repayment of the loan if the purpose of usage of the machinery or equipment acquired using the proceeds of the loan is changed, if the ownership of such machinery or
equipment is transferred to a third party or if insurance proceeds are paid for such machinery or equipment. 

  

	 	•	 	Other provisions: The State Treasury may deduct from the proceeds of the loan that is extended to the Borrower amounts to be used by the Treasury for set-off against any matured indebtedness of the Borrower to
the Treasury. The Lender has the right to conduct inspections relating to the applicable R&D project and related accounting. According to the general terms and conditions of the financing, the Borrower must inform any significant changes in the
ownership structure of the Borrower to Tekes. 

  

	 	•	 	Governing law: Finnish law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 3RD QUARTER 10QSO.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          24,568
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,112
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (18,166)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,048
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          835,838
<BONDS>                                         25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,830
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (773,862)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,806
<SALES>                                         44,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,953
<CGS>                                           29,892
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,892
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               272,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,816
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (10,065)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (267,340)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (267,340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (267,340)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Leamon Grant West, * From the 238 th District Court

of Midland County

Trial Court No. CR48034

.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 7

- 0005 0

- CR * February 7 , 201 9

The Sta te of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J.,

Stretcher , J. , and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment )

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there

is no error in the judgment s below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the judgme nt s of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 3 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 4 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 5 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 6 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 7 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 8 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 9 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 10 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 11 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 12 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 13 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 14 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 15 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 16 of 17
Case 1:09-cv-00029-CG-B Document 38 Filed 01/19/10 Page 17 of 17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         155,235
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,296,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,296,321
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               559,966
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,362,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,696
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             507,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,283,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              9,182,017
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   898,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    33.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    33.44
        

</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
CARL W E ST , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA; JO E G O R DW IN, an FB I age nt, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16909 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00304-GM S
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d and Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 6, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI , O ’SCANNL A IN and M CKE O W N , ** C irc uit Judge s. At the tim e W e st file d his c om pla int, he ha d not y e t pre s e nte d his FTC A
c la im s to thea

p p ropriate gove rnm e nt a g e nc y . Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2675(a). The 

# F IL ED
APR 3 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** Following a

rgum e nt in this c a se , Judge M c K e own wa s dra wn to re pla c e Judge Noona

n .pa ge 2

distric t c o urt thus found tha t it la c k e d jurisdic tion ove r the se c la i m s. C onc l uding that e xha u stion of C ounts 4, 7 a

nd 10 would be

futile be c a

use the two-y e ar FTC A filing de a dline ha d

pa sse d, se e 28 U.S.C
. § 2401(b), the distric t c ourt dismisse d those c la i m s with pre

judic e . B ut, whileW e st’ s a ppe a l wa s pe nding, theSupre m e C ourt c onfirm e d tha

t pla i ntiffs m ay se e k e quita ble tolling of c l a im s a ga inst the Unite d State s unde r the FTC A. Unite d State s v. W ong, 135 S. C t . 1625, 1638 (2015). At ora l argum e nt be fore us, W e st’ s c o unse l re pre se n te d tha t W e st ha s now pre s e nte d his c la im s to thea ppropria te a ge nc y . The distric t c ourt a l so found tha t C ounts 7, 9 a

nd 10 fa ile d to sta

te a c la im
and thus dism

isse d C ount 9 with pre

judic e a s we l l. B e c a

use W e st ha d not y e t
e xha uste d a dm inistra

t ive re m e die s, the distric t c ourt did not ha ve jurisdic tion to
re solve those c la im s on the m e rits. Se e M unns v. Ke rry , 782 F.3d 402, 413 (9th C ir. 2015). W e the re fore re v e rse the dism issa l with pre judic e of C ounts 4, 7, 9 a nd 10 so tha t W e st m ay

re file and se e k e quita

b le tolling of those

c la im s. W e a ddre ss the re st of W e s t’ s c la im s in a c onc urre ntly

file d opinion.
RE V E RSE D.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2b

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
National Bancshares Corporation of Texas

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-94213
on Form S-8 of National Bancshares of Texas of our report dated March 18, 1999
(except for Note 2 as to which the date is April 19, 1999) relating to the
consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year ended December 31, 1998 for National Bancshares Corporation
of Texas and subsidiaries, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual
report on Form 10-K of National Bancshares Corporation of Texas.

                                      /S/ PADGETT, STRATEMANN & CO., L.L.P.
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Padgett, Stratemann & Co., L.L.P.


San Antonio, Texas
March 29, 2001
July 30, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 30th day of July, 2015.

10-14-00054-CR	PLATO AUGUST SPLAWN, JR. v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 12TH DISTRICT COURT OF WALKER COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 25,790 – AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
Exhibit 12


THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in Thousands)


	Twelve Months Ended
	December 31,
		1997	1996	1995	

Net Income	$	127,985	$	119,147	$	59,053

Income Taxes		61,870		72,813		21,573
	$	189,855	$	191,960	$	80,626



Fixed Charges:
	Interest	$	61,720	50,937	47,330
	Amortization of Debt Discount,
		Expense and Premium	1,538	1,610	1,567
	Rentals		34,671		34,470		35,300
			$	97,929	$	87,017	$	84,197



Earnings Before Income Taxes
	and Fixed Charges	$	287,784	$	278,977	$	164,823



Ratio of Earning to Fixed Charges		2.94 x		3.21 x		1.96 x

Exhibit 12


THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in Thousands)


	Twelve Months Ended
	December 31,
		1994	1993	1992	

Net Income	$	115,963	$	107,196	$	107,065

Income Taxes		53,152		54,120		45,639
	$	169,115	$	161,316	$	152,704



Fixed Charges:
	Interest	$	44,096	$	48,142	$	48,810
	Amortization of Debt Discount,
		Expense and Premium	1,666	1,768	1,878
	Rentals		36,586		36,631		36,905
			$	82,348	$	86,541	$	87,593



Earnings Before Income Taxes
	and Fixed Charges	$	251,463	$	247,857	$	240,297



Ratio of Earning to Fixed Charges		3.05 x		2.86 x		2.74 x
Exhibit 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: March 4, 2010By:
    
    /s/ Alec C. CovingtonName: Alec C. CovingtonTitle: President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ Robert B. DimondName: Robert B. DimondTitle: Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
| 1.   | The                Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The                information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                October                31, 2006 | /s/                  Joseph D. Reid           Joseph                D. ReidChief                Executive Officer |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Opinion issued April 10, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00099-CV

———————————

RUTHERFORD COLVIN, Appellant

V.

HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1021999

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Rutherford Colvin, has neither paid the required fees nor 

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; 

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 2013); 

Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts 
2

of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket 

No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1). 

After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees. We 

dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.