alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-17-00683-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

FELICIANO CRUZ, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 214th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Order Per Curiam

This matter is before the Court on appellant’s motion to abate appeal, extend time 

for brief, and supplement record. The reporter’s record was filed on February 28, 2018. 

Appellant has advised this Court that the record does not contain a hearing on the motion 

for new trial. Appellant requests the deadline for filing appellant’s brief be extended until 

after the reporter’s record is supplemented.
2

When a relevant item has been omitted from the reporter’s record, the appellate 

court may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate 

court a supplemental reporter’s record containing the omitted items. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.6(d). Accordingly, appellant’s motion to supplement the reporter’s record is 

GRANTED and the appeal is ABATED. 

The court reporter of the 214th District Court of Nueces County is directed to 

prepare a supplemental reporter’s record in this cause to include the hearing on the 

motion for new trial held in trial court cause number 16CR-2706-F. The supplemental 

record shall be filed with this Court within thirty days from the date of this order. 

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. The appeal 

will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental reporter’s record and upon further 

order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

7th day of August, 2018.
Exhibit 10.30




[English Summary]
 
 Advertising Agreement between Fujian Education TV Station
 and Fujian Xin Hengji Advisement Limited Co.
 
 Party A: Fujian Education TV Station
 Party B : Fujian Xin Hengji Advisement Limited Co.
 
 Cooperation:
 Excepted provided herein, Party B shall operate and manage the commercial air time of Party A. Party B is the sole contactor for advertising business of Party A. Party B can use the name “Fujian Education TV Advertising Department.” However, Party B cannot use such name to do anything not related to the advertising business.
 
 Term:
 This Agreement shall be effective from August 1, 2003 to July 31, 2010 for a period of seven years.
 
 After the Term, if Party B has fulfilled its obligation under this Agreement, Party A agrees that the Term shall be extended for another five years, on the basis that the contracted amount shall be increased 20% year by year based on the contracted amount of the seventh year of the Term.
 
 Contract Amount:
 
 The total contract amount shall be 70 million RMB, with 10 million RMB each year.
 
 Party B shall pay to Party A 500,000 RMB upon execution of the agreement and upon beginning of each year as deposit. Then Party B shall pay to Party A remaining balance in equal amount every quarter.
 
 Termination:
 Either party cannot terminate the Agreement without consent of the other party.
 
 Jurisdiction:
 Laws of China
 
 Dispute:
 If there is any dispute between the parties, both parties shall resolve the dispute through compromise settlement. If the parties cannot reach the settlement, then either party can resolve the dispute by the courts.
 
 Date of the Agreement:
 July 11, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1995 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1995

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
  Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
   Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National 
  Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 
              NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH 
              DISPARITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Institute on 
Minority Health and Health Disparities for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $314,679,000.
                                 <all>
```
12049.

#### Bigham *v.*The State.

Decided January 28, 1921.

Indictment for assault with intent to rape; from Mitchell superior court — Judge Wilson. November 6, 1920.

*A. S. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. G. Gardner, solicitor-general, B. G. Bell, F. A. Hooper, C. E. Grow,*contra.

Bboyles, C. J.

Tlie motion for a new 'trial contained only the usual general grounds; the evidence, with the legal deductions and inferences arising therefrom, authorized the verdict; and, the finding of the jury having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1992 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Human 

Genome Research for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research for 

fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1992 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NA4 TIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of Health and Human Services, Na9 tional Institutes of Health National Human Genome Re10 search for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $575,579,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1886 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1886

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
 Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Diversity and 
                    Inclusion for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
 Representatives, Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Diversity and 
                    Inclusion for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF THE OFFICE OF 
              DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.00.
                                 <all>
```
#### R. M. Lesly *v.*John D. Minos.

New Trial — Newly Discovered Evidence.

Where one suffers judgment and prior thereto had made no diligent search for a receipt, he is not entitled to a new trial because since the trial he has found the receipt.

APPEAL FROM PIKE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 5, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

It is alleged in the petition to vacate the judgment, by the appellant, that he made diligent search after the judgment had been ren*759dered against him, for the lost note, being satisfied that he had paid it, and upon making this search found it among his appellant’s papers ; that the appellee was mistaken in alleging that it had not been paid, and asserted his right to a judgment from a want of recollection as to what had transpired prior to the war. The statements of the petition, if true, do not bring the case within any of the provisions of the Code of Practice, authorizing the granting of new trial or vacating judgment. If the appellant had made diligent search before judgment, and when process was served upon him, he might have found the note, and according to his own statement the judgment against him, if improper, results from his own laches.

*Apperson &*Reid, *for appellant. George N.*Brown, *for appellee.*

Besides, the appellant’s own father now swears that he was present when the money was paid and the note taken up, and of this fact the appellant must have been apprised. He was, therefore, negliment in not making inquiry of those who, according to his own statement, must have known all about it. The appellee also accounts for the manner in which the father of appellant got possession of the note. Brown, the attorney, says that the note alleged to have been lost was given up to appellant’s father for the purpose of having it renewed; that both the old note and the renewal note was handed to the father with the direction that when renewed it was to be delivered to a man by the name of Hamilton. The note held was renewed, and the father may have forgotten to deliver the old note to Hamilton. He, however, swears that the note was paid to Hamilton, and this may be true; but such negligence on the part of the appellant in the preparation of his defense, connected with the doubt therein on the question of payment created by the testimony of Brown, precludes a court of equity from affording any relief; and, in fact, the statements in the petition, if conceded to be true, present no case for the interposition of the chancellor.

Judgment *affirmed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEFFREY SCOTT HANCOCK, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0579-CB-M

 :

KENNETH JONES, :

 :

Respondent. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, 

and a de novo determination of those portions of the 

Recommendation to which objection is made, the Recommendation of 

the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is 

adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this petition be DENIED and that this 

action be DISMISSED as time-barred. It is further ORDERED that

any certificate of appealability filed by Petitioner be DENIED

as he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE this 30th day of June, 2015.

 s/Charles R. Butler, Jr.

 CHARLES R. BUTLER, JR.

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00579-CB-M Document 16 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 1
Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
 Quarter EndedMarch 31, 2011Including Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    8,420Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    51,513Total Earnings
    
    $
    59,933Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    50,557Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    264An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    692Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    51,513Preferred dividends
    
    
    2,415Ratio of pre-tax income to net income
    
    
    2.533Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    6,117Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividens
    
    $
    57,630Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    1.04Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings:Pre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    8,420Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    24,614Total Earnings
    
    $
    33,034Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    23,658Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses related to indebtedness
    
    
    264An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    692Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    24,614Preferred dividends
    
    
    2,415Ratio of pre-tax income to net income
    
    
    2.533Preferred dividend factor
    
    
    6,117Total fixed charges and preferred stock dividens
    
    $
    30,731Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
    
    
    1.07
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-60639 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. MEERA SACHDEVA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:11-CR-65-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * M e e r a S ach d eva appeals the district court’s order af f ir min g th e m a gi s tr at e judge’s pretrial detention order. The district court determined that no condition

o r combination of conditions would reasonably assure Sachdeva’s presence a t trial. A judicial officer may order a defen d a n t d e tained pending trial if the officer finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person.” U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 25 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-60639 Document: 00511644721 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2011No. 11-60639

18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), (f); see United States v. Fortna , 769 F.2d 243, 250 (5th Cir. 1985). Absent an error of law, we will uphold a district court’s pretrial detention order if it is supported by the proceedings in that court, a deferential standard of review that equates to an abuse of discretion standard. United State s v. Rueben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 199 2). The district court’s determination that the Government had show n b y a preponderance of the evidence that no conditio n o r combination of conditions could reasonably assure Sachdeva’s presence at trial is supported by the record. See § 3142; United States v. Westbrook , 780 F.2d 1185, 1189-90 (5th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the pretrial detention order is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-60639 Document: 00511644721 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2011
#### L. B. Foster Company, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Hugh C. Fox and Another, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 14, 1925.

Sales — remedies of buyer — action to recover damages upon defendants’ refusal to accept goods — rejected goods sold as junk — exclusion of evidence showing goods sold as junk did not comply with contract description, error — judgment for plaintiff reversed.

In an action by the seller to recover damages upon the buyers’ refusal to accept goods, it is reversible error to exclude evidence offered by the defendants indicating that the goods, which the seller claimed it resold at a loss as junk, did not comply with the contract description of the merchandise; and, therefore, a judgment for the plaintiff, upon a directed verdict, should be reversed.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York entered upon a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff.

*J. Stacey Brown [Nathaniel S. Corwin*of counsel], for the appellants.

*Truesdale, Nicoll, Falk & Gale [Joseph B. Truesdale*and *Edwin A. Falk*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff contracted to sell to defendants 750 size *“*A ” Reading Rerailers. Deliveries were in installments; two installments were accepted and paid for. Defendants refused to specify deliveries for the third installment and plaintiff, claiming that there was no market, sold the implements as junk.

The burden, therefore, rested upon plaintiff to prove that the articles which it so resold complied with the description of the contract. *(Chemung Iron & Steel Co.*v. *Smith & Hemenway, Inc.,*203 App Div. 624.) There was no proof to this effect in plaintiff’s case in chief, for plaintiff’s witness testified that there was a different size, known as size *“*A-2,” and that he was unable to tell whether the sample in court was a size *“*A ” or size “ A-2 ” rerailer (unless he weighed it), size “ A ” being heavier by a fixed amount than size *“*A-2.” Defendants then showed that the weight of the rerailers which were sold for junk did not correspond with the weight of size “ A ” rerailers. They also offered evidence of the original manufacturer that no size “A” rerailers had been made for the United States government. It had been conceded that plaintiff had purchased these rerailers from the government. The exclusion of this testimony was clearly error. There was thus affirmative proof that the rerailers did not comply with the con*741tract description and the exclusion of evidence which tended further to corroborate this claim. Acceptance by the vendee of size *“*A-2 ” rerailers under the two prior installment deliveries in nowise affected the vendor’s obligation to deliver size " A ” rerailers as the third installment. *(Cahen*v. *Platt,*69 N. Y. 348; 2 Williston Sales [2d ed.], § 467d.)

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Mahoney, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  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 Annual Report of Golden Telecom, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, David Stewart,
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer 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; as
                  amended; and

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of March 2004.

/s/ DAVID STEWART
-----------------------------------
David Stewart
Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of Kent Financial  Services,  Inc., for the three months ended March
31,  2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000316028
<NAME>                                         KENT FINANCIAL SERVICES,INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         3,245
<SECURITIES>                                  10,084
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,268
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              14,597
<PP&E>                                         1,712
<DEPRECIATION>                                   557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                16,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,286
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                         186
<OTHER-SE>                                    13,549
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  16,021
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,190
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                99
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,362
<INCOME-TAX>                                       3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,359
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,359
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .72



</TABLE>