alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ricketson *v.*The State.

April 12, 1910.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Park. Ware superior court.

December 31, 1909.

*J. L. Sweat,*and *A. B. Spence,*for plaintilf in error.

.*John O. Hart, attorney-general, J. H. Thomas, solicitor-general,*and *Wilson, Bennett & Lamhdin,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where, on the trial of one indicted for murder, the evidence as to admissions or inculpatory statements made by the defendant in regard to the homicide was to the effect that he said that the person killed was trying to cut him with a knife and he had to shoot in self-defense; and whe.re, in the statement made by the prisoner at the trial, he said that the deceased was trying to cut him with a knife, and to defend himself he drew his pistol and fired without pointing it at the deceased, but the ball took effect, it was error to charge, that, “if the killing is proven to the satisfaction of the jury, or if 'admitted by the defendant to have been done and with an instrument that is used in a manner likely to produce death, then malice is presumed.” *Futch*v. *State,*90 *Ga.*472 (8), (16 S. E. 802); *Perkins*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*6 (52 S. E. 17); *Green*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*343 (52 S. E. 431); *Mann*v. *State,*124 *Ga.*760 (53 S. E. 324, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 934).

2. It has been held by this court that, in charging a jury in a murder case, it is not advisable for the presiding judge to say that, “to define malice in the language of the .Supreme Court, ‘malice may live in the gleam of the blade, or in the flash of the *gun.”’ Leonard*v. *State,*133 *Ga.*435 (66 S. E. 251).

3. Where one contention of the defendant was that the person slain went to the place of the homicide for the purpose of having a difficulty with him, it was neither hearsay nor irrelevant to allow the mother of the deceased to testify that she had asked her son to do something for her, the performance of which would require him to go to the place where the homicide occurred. *Harper*v. *State,*129 *Ga.*770 (59 S. E. 792); *Patterson*v. *State,*134 *Ga.*264 (67 S. E. 816).

4. In a case in which the facts render section 73 of the Penal Code applicable to one theory on which the defendant relies for justification, it is not error to give that section in charge. But if there be evidence of mutual combat which would authorize a finding that the homicide was voluntary manslaughter, the section referred to should not be so given as, in connection with its context, to exclude the latter theory.

5. The charge on the subject of communicated threats was not accurately expressed. But neither this nor the other grounds of the motion for new trial require detailed consideration.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001063564
<NAME> PRIZE ENERGY CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,487
<PP&E>                                         362,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 389,840
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,805
<BONDS>                                        211,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                     117,723
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   389,840
<SALES>                                        107,280
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,280
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (501)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,806
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,156
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.56


</TABLE>
### §§117e to 117j. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §39, 62 Stat. 992, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section 117e, acts Apr. 25, 1928, ch. 434, §6, 45 Stat. 460; June 28, 1938, ch. 778, §1, 52 Stat. 1213, related to appointment and jurisdiction of commissioner. See provisions covering United States magistrate judges in section 631 et seq. of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Section 117f, act Apr. 25, 1928, ch. 434, §7, 45 Stat. 460, related to criminal offenses. See sections 3041 and 3141 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and rules 4, 5(c), and 9 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Title 18, Appendix.

Section 117g, act Apr. 25, 1928, ch. 434, §8, 45 Stat. 460, related to issuance of process.

Section 117h, acts Apr. 25, 1928, ch. 434, §9, 45 Stat. 461; June 28, 1938, ch. 778, §1, 52 Stat. 1213, related to salary of commissioner [now magistrate judge].

Section 117i, act Apr. 25, 1928, ch. 434, §10, 45 Stat. 461, related to fees, costs, and expenses against the United States.

Section 117j, act Apr. 25, 1928, ch. 434, §11, 45 Stat. 461, related to disposition of fines and costs.
### MANDATE



## Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 13

- 00564

- CR

ROY DALE GLOVER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

Appeal from the 506th District Court of Grimes County. (Tr. Ct. No. 14199 ).

TO THE 506TH DISTRICT COURT OF GRIMES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court , on the 25th day of September 2014 , the ca se upon appeal to revise

or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by

the trial court on May 28, 2013. After submitting the case on

the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the

parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains

no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial

court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below

for observance.

Judgment rendered September 2 5, 2014.

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Sharp. Opiniondelivered by Justice Higley.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order o f our said Court in

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

March 13, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668, No. 333-26177, No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463, No. 333-39754, No. 333-116991, No. 333-130452, No. 33-137546, and No. 33-139856) of Gerber Scientific, Inc. of our report dated July 9, 2007 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
July 9, 2007
### SUBCHAPTER CXXVI—LAS CIENEGAS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE00562A1

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR THE CONFECTIONERY SUNFLOWER PRICING METHODOLOGY (23-CEPP-M0078)

(Released June 2022)

The following is a brief description of changes to the Confectionery Sunflower Pricing Methodology for the 2023 and 

succeeding crop years. Please refer to the Confectionery Sunflower Pricing Methodology document below for complete

information.

• The document was reformatted to be more consistent with other policy documents.
(1 of 1)

23-CEPP-M0078

(Released June 2022)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Confectionery Sunflower Pricing Methodology

RMA establishes distinct oil type and confectionary type sunflower prices in accordance with the Common Crop Insurance Policy 

Basic Provisions and the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions: Section II – Sunflowers (CEPP). The CEPP states that the 

confectionary sunflower price will be the CEPP price determined for oil type sunflowers, multiplied by a factor “determined by RMA.” 

The method used to determine this factor is explained in this document. 

The adjustment factor applied to the oil type CEPP price is 

calculated by forecasting both oil type and confectionary 

type sunflower prices using Holt’s two-parameter, double 

exponential smoothing technique. National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) price series beginning with the 

year 1975 are used. 

The exponentially smoothed series or current level 

estimate is: Lt =∝ yt + (1−∝)(Lt−1 + bt−1) 

The trend estimate is: bt = β (Lt - Lt−1) + (1 - β) bt−1

Forecast m periods into the future: Ft+m = Lt + m bt

Where: 

Lt = Estimate of the level of the series at time t

∝ = 0.25 (smoothing constant for the data)

yt = new observation or actual value of series in period t

β = 0.10557 (smoothing constant for trend estimate)

bt = estimate of the slope of the series at time t

m = periods to be estimated into the future

After both the oil type and confectionary type sunflower 

prices are forecast, the factor applied to the oil type CEPP 

price is computed by dividing the oil type forecast from the 

confectionary forecast.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of ITS Networks
Inc. (the  Company) for the quarter  ended  December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the  date  hereof  (the  Report),  the
undersigned  Chief Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
each hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 results of  operations  of the
Company.


Dated:  February 14, 2005


---------------------------                 -----------------------------
Gustavo Gomez, Director,                    Herman  de  Haas,
Chief Executive Officer,                    Director, Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial                  President and Chief Operating
Officer and Treasurer                       Officer
MEMORANDUM

To: John Schaeffer, CITB

From: Kathryn Schechter, ICB

Date: 11/25/2013

Re: Data adequacy for chemical-physical properties for 1-Decene, sulfurized (CASRN 72162-

15-3)

I have reviewed the chemical-physical properties data for 1-Decene, sulfurized for the 

following: Validation of an analytical method, Boiling temperature, Vapour pressure, Water 

solubility, and Partition coefficient. The studies were performed using the correct methodology

and the results of the studies were adequate.
cc: Daimon Monroe 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
#### Grace Graham et al., Respondents, v County of Suffolk, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 162]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated September 30, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

During the early afternoon of August 10, 2002 an unusually large number of swimmers were rescued from the waters off Cupsogue County Park, the defendant’s beach, when a rip current developed and pulled swimmers seaward. Later that afternoon, the lifeguards implemented the usual procedure for closing down the beach at 5:30 p.m., the normal closing time. As part of that procedure, the lifeguards directed all swimmers to leave the water. At that time, lifeguard Brian Babst encountered two teenaged boys, the decedent, Kymani Green, and his companion, on the beach, “right in front of the [lifeguard] *528tower.” The boys questioned Babst as to why they were being removed from the water. Babst explained that the lifeguards were going off duty at that time, that the water would accordingly be unprotected, and that swimming was therefore prohibited at that time. That was the last time that Babst saw the two boys before closing down the beach that day. After all the lifeguards departed the beach, the decedent and his companion returned to the water. Both boys encountered difficulty swimming in the ocean and Green drowned.

In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant established, prima facie, that it was not under a duty to warn swimmers that a dangerous rip current had developed earlier that afternoon *(see Sartoris v State of New York,*133 AD2d 619 [1987]) and that Green’s death was not proximately caused by any alleged negligence on its part. Notably, Babst, the defendant’s employee, personally warned the decedent that swimming in the ocean was prohibited after 5:30 p.m. since the lifeguards went off duty at that time and the waters would be unprotected. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the motion.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### George Balfe, Respondent, v. The Frank Brewery, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred; Hirschberg, P. J., not voting.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6105]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Subcommittee Meeting of the Board of Advisors to the President, 
Naval Postgraduate School

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of The Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the 
following meeting of the Subcommittee Meeting of the Board of Advisors 
(BOA) to The President, Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) will be held. 
This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, from 8 a.m. 
to 4 p.m. and on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. 
Pacific Time Zone.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Naval Postgraduate School, 
Herrmann Hall, 1 University Circle, Room M-9, Monterey, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jaye Panza, Naval Postgraduate 
School, Monterey, CA 93943-5001, telephone number 831-656-2514.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to elicit the 
advice of the Board on the Naval Service's Postgraduate Education 
Program and the collaborative exchange and partnership between NPS and 
the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). The board examines the 
effectiveness with which the NPS is accomplishing its mission. To this 
end, the board will inquire into the curricula; instruction; physical 
equipment; administration; state of morale of the student body, 
faculty, and staff; fiscal affairs; and any other matters relating to 
the operation of the NPS as the board considers pertinent. General 
deliberations leading to provisional findings for referral to the BOA 
to the Presidents of the NPS and the Naval War College Committee will 
follow at a later date. Individuals without a DoD government/CAC card 
require an escort at the meeting location. For access, information, or 
to send written comments regarding the NPS BOA contact Ms. Jaye Panza, 
Designated Federal Officer, Naval Postgraduate School, 1 University 
Circle, Monterey, CA 93943-5001 or by fax 831-656-3145 by April 19, 
2011.

    Dated: March 10, 2011.
D.J. Werner,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-6105 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
### §7265. Disclosure of audit committee financial expert

#### (a) Rules defining "financial expert"

The Commission shall issue rules, as necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors, to require each issuer, together with periodic reports required pursuant to sections 78m(a) and 78o(d) of this title, to disclose whether or not, and if not, the reasons therefor, the audit committee of that issuer is comprised of at least 1 member who is a financial expert, as such term is defined by the Commission.

#### (b) Considerations

In defining the term "financial expert" for purposes of subsection (a), the Commission shall consider whether a person has, through education and experience as a public accountant or auditor or a principal financial officer, comptroller, or principal accounting officer of an issuer, or from a position involving the performance of similar functions—

(1) an understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and financial statements;

(2) experience in—

(A) the preparation or auditing of financial statements of generally comparable issuers; and

(B) the application of such principles in connection with the accounting for estimates, accruals, and reserves;

(3) experience with internal accounting controls; and

(4) an understanding of audit committee functions.

#### (c) Deadline for rulemaking

The Commission shall—

(1) propose rules to implement this section, not later than 90 days after July 30, 2002; and

(2) issue final rules to implement this section, not later than 180 days after July 30, 2002.

(Pub. L. 107–204, title IV, §407, July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 790.)
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

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0468]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Patent Term Restoration, Due Diligence Petitions, Filing, Format, and Content of Petitions” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3792,                         *Elizabeth.Berbakos@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of January 12, 2011 (76 FR 2127), the Agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0233. The approval expires on February 28, 2014. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: March 10, 2011.

Leslie Kux,

Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2011-6091 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT


TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, Finance and
Operations and Treasurer of Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) does
hereby certify as follows:





This
annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31,
2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Robert A. McKinneyDate:
      March 15, 2010
            Robert
      A. McKinney
              Chief
      Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, Finance & Operations and
      Treasurer (Principal Financial
Officer)








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