alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00079-CR

Braxton Tyrone Henderson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 55,347, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Braxton Tyrone Henderson guilty of assaulting a household

member, subsequent offense. S ee Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b) (2) (West Supp. 2004).

The court imposed a ten-year prison sentence.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the app e al is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. S ee also Penson v. Ohio

, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State

, 573

S.W.2d 8 0 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State

, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State

, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State

, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969).2 Appellant also filed a pro se brief responding to counsel’s brief. In this brief,

appellant asserts that he has learned since his trial that his earlier conviction was based on a false

arrest and that his attorney at trial should have used this fact to secure an ac quittal in the instant

cause. These assertions are not supported by the record before us.

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We find nothing

in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: September 10, 2004

Do Not Publish
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2075 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office 

of the President, Information Technology Oversight and Reform 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 Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office of the President, Information Technology 

Oversight and Reform 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, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, IN5 FORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT AND 

6 REFORM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Executive Office of the President, Information 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2075 IH

1 Technology Oversight and Reform for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $8,000,000. 

Æ 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                              [LOGO OF COCA-COLA]

                                                                         EX 10.1

                       Employment Agreement Termination
                       --------------------------------

     James L. Moore, Jr. ("Employee") and Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated
(the "Company") hereby acknowledge that the Employment Agreement, dated as of
March 16, 1987 (the "Employment Agreement"), between the Company and Employee
has been terminated effective as of January 1, 2001, and that Employee has no
continuing rights or entitlements thereunder.

     Notwithstanding the termination of the Employment Agreement, Employee
agrees to serve as Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company
through December 31, 2002. In that regard, (a) Employee's base salary will
continue through December 31, 2002 at an annual rate of $572,797; (b) Employee
will continue to participate in the Company's Annual Bonus Plan for calendar
years 2001 and 2002; and (c) Employee's salary and bonus will terminate
effective December 31, 2002.

Dated: April 27, 2001

/s/ James L. Moore, Jr.
-------------------------
James L. Moore, Jr.


COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. CONSOLIDATED

By: /s/ Robert D. Pettus, Jr.
    --------------------------------
Name: ROBERT D. PETTUS, Jr.
      ------------------------------
Title: Executive Vice President and
       Assistant to the Chairman
      ------------------------------
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2249 

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

of Agriculture, Agriculutral Research Service, Buildings and Facilities 

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 Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Agriculutral Research Service, Buildings and Facilities 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, 

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

5 AGRICULUTRAL RESEARCH SERVICE, BUILD6 INGS AND FACILITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Agriculutral ReVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:34 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2249.IH H2249

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2249 IH

1 search Service, Buildings and Facilities for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $127,805,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EX-10.34



 Exhibit 10.34 

THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE 

THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (“Third Amendment”) is made by and between the Regents of the University of New Mexico, a body corporate of the
State of New Mexico, as Landlord, and Exagen Diagnostics, Inc., as Tenant. 
 WHEREAS, in May 2013, Tenant entered into a
Lease with Landlord for space at 800 Bradbury Dr.SE known as Suite 108 (the “Lease”); and, 
 WHEREAS, in April
2014, Tenant entered into a First Amendment to lease, exercising its First Option to extend the initial term of the Lease Agreement for six (6) additional months; and, 

WHEREAS, in November 2014, Tenant entered into a Second Amendment to Lease, to extend the initial term of the Lease Agreement
for six (6) additional months; and, 
 WHEREAS, Tenant now desires, and Landlord agrees, to extend the Lease Term by
six (6) months and, 
 NOW THEREFORE, Tenant and Landlord mutually agree and covenant as follows: 

 

	 	1.	 Landlord and Tenant agree to extend the Lease Term for six (6) months to commence June 1, 2015 and expire on November 30, 2015.



  

	 	2.	 The monthly rent amount shall remain, Four Thousand Two Hundred and Five Dollars and Thirty-four cents ($4,205.34). 



 

	 	3.	 All capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Third Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Lease. 










	 	4.	 Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Third Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. 

 

					
	 LANDLORD: The Regents of the University of New Mexico

			
		 		 	 /s/ David W. Harris

		 	 By:
	 	 David W. Harris

		 	 Its:
	 	 EVP for Administration, COO & CFO

			
		 		 	 /s/ Bruce Cherrin

		 	 By:
	 	 Bruce Cherrin

		 	 Its:
	 	 Chief Procurement Officer

	
	     TENANT:    Exagen Diagnostics, Inc.,

			
		 		 	 /s/ Wendy Swedick

		 	 By:
	 	 Wendy Swedick

		 	 Its:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer




  
 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00106-CR

James Paul Hicks, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 50,118, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant James Paul Hicks was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision after he pleaded no contest to aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Pen. Code

Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2001). The court later revoked supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty,

and imposed sentence of imprisonment for six years.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, and appellant was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. 
2

No pro se brief has been filed. Appellant’s father, however, sent the Court a letter and

certain accompanying documents that he asserts raise questions about the regularity of the

proceedings below. We have examined these documents and find no basis for disturbing the district

court’s judgment.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: June 29, 2001

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 10.1


 


May 28, 2015


 


Mr. Manuel Medina-Mora


Citigroup Inc.


399 Park Avenue


New York, New York 10043


 


Re: Banamex Board Service


 


Dear Manuel,


 


As announced earlier this year, you have agreed to become the
nonexecutive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Grupo Financiero Banamex, S.A. de C.V. (Grupo) and of Banco Nacional de Mexico,
S.A. (Banamex) (together, the Boards) immediately following your retirement from Citigroup on June 1, 2015. You will be paid by
Grupo and/or Banamex for your services as Chairman of the Boards at the rate of USD$250,000 per year (less applicable taxes); this
fee compensates you for service on both Boards including any Board committee service. The fee will be prorated on a monthly basis
for partial years of service, and is payable in monthly installments in Mexican pesos using the fixed exchange rate established
by the Boards for Board fees, which currently is Ps$15 (Mexican pesos) per U.S. dollar through the date of the annual shareholders’
meetings of Grupo and Banamex to be held in 2016. To enable you to perform these services, you will have access to an office and
an administrative assistant in a Banamex office building for your tenure as Chairman of the Boards. You and your spouse (together,
your household) will also be provided with security as considered necessary by Citi’s Global Head of Security and Investigative
Services for your tenure as Chairman of the Boards.


 


Sincerely,


 





 


	_/s/ J. Michael Murray  __________	/s/Ernesto Torres Cantu   
	J. Michael Murray	Ernesto Torres Cantu
	Head of Human Resources	Director General
	Citigroup Inc.	Grupo Financiero Banamex, S.A. de C.V.
	 	Banco Nacional de Mexico, S.A.


 


 


Acknowledged and Agreed:


 


 


 


By:_/s/ Manuel Medina-Mora


Manuel Medina-Mora
**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**

** **

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Chemtura Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 (the “Report”), I, Robert L.Wood, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

(1)the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /S/  ROBERT L. WOOD                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Robert  L. Wood                         |
|   | President  and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   | March  31, 2006                         |

 

 

Thiswritten statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### United States *v.*Dewey *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

July 15, 1889.)

Abatement and Revival.

A cause of action against an assignee in bankruptcy for wrongfully paying the assets in his hands to other creditors of the bankrupt than plaintiff does not abate on the assignee’s death.

At Law. On demurrer to complaint.

*Stephen A. Wallcer,*U. S. Atty.

*Wing, Shoudy & Putnam, (Joseph H. Choate,*of counsel,) for defendants.

Wallace, J.

The complaint alleges that the defendants’ testator, Barnes, was the assignee in bankruptcy of Yetterlein and another, who were on the 7th of February, 1871, duly adjudicated bankrupts; that the bankrupts were jointly and severally indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $99,000; that their estate was insufficient to pay all their debts; that said Barnes had notice of the demand of the plaintiff at a time when he had in his hands of the estate of the bankrupts the sum of $32,000; that thereafter he paid that sum to the creditors of the bankrupts other than the plaintiff; and that the remaining assets of the bankrupts are insufficient to pay the debt of the plaintiff by more than 132,000. The complaint then alleges the death of Barnes, and the appointment and qualification of the defendants as his executor. The demurrer to the complaint presents the single question whether the cause of action against the deceased assignee of the bankrupts survives against his executors. The action is in *assumpsit*for money had and received, and is founded upon a breach of duty of the assignee, and therefore does not abate. At common law, even when the cause of action originates in tort, and trover or case would lie, but the facts permit an action of *assumpsit,*if the plaintiff elects to bring *assumpsit,*the action does not abate. *Hambly*v. *Trott,*1 Cowp. 373; *Wheatley*v. *Lane,*1 Saund. 217, note; *Sollers*v. *Lawrence,*Willes, 421. The property of the bankrupts that came to the hands of the assignee was by force Of the statute (section 3466, Rev. St. U. S.) a trust fund in his hands for the payment of the debt of the plaintiff, and he was bound, as a trustee for the plaintiff, to pay its debt first out of the proceeds of the property. The cause of action is not in the nature of a penalty, but is one which may be enforced as a trust in equity or at law, by an action for money had and received. *Beaston*v. *Bank,*12 Pet. 102; *Lewis*v. *U. S.,*92 U. S. 618; *Bayne v. U. S.,*93 U. S. 642; *Field*v. *U. S.,*9 Pet. 182. The demurrer is overruled, with leave to the defendants to answer within 20 days upon payment of costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2238 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2238

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary 
                 for Civil Rights 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 Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary 
                 for Civil Rights 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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, EXECUTIVE OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE 
              ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Executive Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Civil Rights for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $901,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

GALEN BROOKS, §

§ No. 185, 2015

Defendant Below-Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§ 

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below-Appellee. §

Submitted: January 20, 2016

Decided: January 20, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices. 

O R D E R

This 20th day of January 2016, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and 

the record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, who was convicted of forty drug-related charges, 

appeals the Superior Court’s decisions denying his motion to suppress 

incriminating wiretap evidence1and denying his motion for a new trial based on 

newly discovered evidence at the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

(“OCME”).

2

 We find that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed 

on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the Superior Court’s decisions of 

July 30, 2013 and March 10, 2015. 

 

1

State v. Brooks, I.D. No. 1206011471, 2013 WL 4051049 (Del. Super. July 30, 2013).

2

State v. Brooks, I.D. No. 1206011471 (Del. Super. Mar. 10, 2015).
2

(2) As to Brooks’s motion for a new trial, Brooks acknowledges that the 

Superior Court had to find that “[t]he new evidence is of such a nature that it 

would have probably changed the result if presented to the jury.”3 But Brooks 

ignores that: (i) the OCME misconduct did not involve evidence planting; (ii) the 

only drug evidence in Brooks’s trial was cocaine found on his co-conspirator; (iii)

this evidence was a very small part of the prosecution’s case; and (iv) the evidence 

seized from Brooks’s co-conspirator was retested after the OCME misconduct was 

discovered and its contents were confirmed to be cocaine. Thus, the Superior 

Court correctly concluded that the new evidence did not undermine the trial’s 

outcome.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgments

of July 30, 2013 and March 10, 2015 are AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

3 Hicks v. State, 913 A.2d 1189, 1194 (Del. 2006); Opening Br. at 21.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Sally, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 233]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ethan Greenberg, J.), entered on or about July 6, 2010, which adjudicated defendant a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law art 6-C), and order, same court (Megan Tallmer, J.), entered on or about February 16, 2012, which effectively denied defendant’s motion for renewal, and also denied defendant’s Correction Law § 168-o petition for modification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The People met their burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the risk factor for sexual intercourse. Although defendant was permitted to plead guilty to first-degree sexual abuse in the underlying case, the victim’s grand jury testimony *568constituted “reliable hearsay” (Correction Law § 168-n [3]) that satisfied the People’s burden *(see People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 572-574, 576-577 [2009]) and established the element of penetration.

The record relating to the February 16, 2012 order establishes that the court effectively denied renewal, and that the denial was proper given that defendant failed to explain why, had he exercised due diligence, the allegedly new evidence could not have been presented at the original hearing *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [3]). To the extent the court deemed defendant’s motion to renew to be a request for modification under Correction Law § 168-0, it properly required defendant to establish whether he was entitled to a downward departure by clear and convincing evidence *(People v Conway,*47 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*10 NY3d 708 [2008]). In any event, regardless of how the proceedings are characterized, we find no basis for a discretionary departure *(see People v Pettigrew,*14 NY3d 406, 409 [2010]; *Mingo,*12 NY3d at 568 n 2; *People v Johnson,*11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008]) to level one. The underlying sex crime was committed against a 10-year-old child, and defendant’s arguments regarding mitigating factors are unpersuasive. In particular, defendant cites medical conditions that did not prevent him from committing the underlying crime.

Concur—Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2291 

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

of Agriculture, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries and Expenses 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 Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, Salaries 

and Expenses 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 2291 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOR3 EIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS, 

4 FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE, SALA5 RIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for US Department of Agriculture, Foreign Assist9 ance and Related Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, 

10 Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $213,890,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS