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

[Cite as *DeRolph v. State*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1212.]

(No. 95-2066

Submitted August 24, 1998

Decided September 1, 1998.)

On Inquiries from the Perry County Court of Common Pleas, No. 22043.

In the within cause, Judge Linton D. Lewis, Jr. has propounded to the court the following two matters:

“1. This Court seeks clarification of the Supreme Court’s order of March 24, 1997 [78 Ohio St.3d 193, 677 N.E.2d 733], as to whether the remand in the case at bar includes both the issues of equal protection and the thorough and efficient clause of the State Constitution.

*“2.*This Court seeks further clarification as to the proper party to bear the burden of production, burden of proof and the related issues of the standard of proof and test to be applied.”

The court responds to the foregoing inquiries as follows:

1. The remand involves the Thorough and Efficient Clause of the Ohio Constitution and not the Equal Protection Clause.

2. The state has the burden of production and proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the constitutional mandates have been satisfied.

Wherefore, the court having fully responded, the trial court is instructed to proceed.

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur in Responses 1 and 2.

Douglas and Resnick, JJ., concur in part with Response 1 and concur in Response 2.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur in Response 1 and dissent to Response 2.

Douglas, J.,

concurring in part. While I concur with the majority as to the Thorough and Efficient Clause consideration, I would also have the remand include the equal protection issue.

Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

Cook, J.,

dissenting in part. For the reasons discussed in my dissenting opinion of August 21, 1998 to *DeRolph v. State*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 1208, 699 *1213N.E.2d 516,1 respectfully dissent from today’s decision to assign to the state the burden of proving that its new legislation is constitutional.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.253 Notice of funding availability, application process and selection. ( a ) *Notice of funding availability.* A Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) will be published periodically in the Federal Register by the Secretary concerned containing the amounts of funds available, allocation or distribution of funds available among eligible applicant groups, where to obtain and submit applications, the deadline for submissions, and further explanation of the selection criteria, review and selection process. The Secretary concerned will designate the maximum allowable size for grants.
( b ) *Selection criteria* are set forth in section 802(h)(1) and shall include additional criteria specified by the Secretary concerned.
#### ALEXANDER v. UNITED STATES.

No. 11895.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec. 22, 1953.

Decided Jan. 7, 1954.

Mr. Andrew W. Carroll, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Lewis A. Carroll and William B. Bryant, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, also entered an .appearance for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from a conviction on the first count of an indictment for violation of § 22-3204, D.C.Code 1951, which defines the offense a person commits in carrying a pistol without a license except in his dwelling house or place of business or on other land possessed by him. Appellant was also tried, but acquitted, on a second count of the same indictment for assault with a deadly weapon, laid under § 22-502, D.C.Code 1951.

Appellant was an employee at a service station. It appears that on the day in question, between two and three o’clock in the morning, when he was off duty, he returned to this place of employment with a male friend and a young woman. There was some drinking. Appellant took from a closet at the service station a pistol he had been keeping there. In handling the pistol he shot another employee, who was then on duty, in the leg. On the trial appellant testified he had removed the pistol from the closet to take it to his dwelling house.

He contends that the court should have directed a verdict of not guilty on the first count because, he says, the undisputed facts showed the service station to be his place of business. Viewing the facts, however, most favorably from the standpoint of appellant there was an issue to be resolved by the jury as to whether or not the service station was his place of business. The court accordingly did not err in refusing to direct a verdict.

The other points on appeal relate to the instructions to the jury. But objections in this regard now come too late to necessitate our review of them, since the provisions of Rule 30, Fed.R. Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A., were not satisfied. And the facts of the case are not such as to call upon us to review points not properly reserved under the rule.

Affirmed.
#### Robert J. MAY, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7036.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2006.

Nancy Kim, Donald E. Kinner, David M. Cohen, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Robert J. May, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Before MAYER, PROST, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Robert J. May appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which vacated the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of his motion for revision on grounds of clear and unmistakable error, and remanded his claim to be held in abeyance pending the final resolution of the underlying case. *May v. Nicholson,*19 Vet.App. 310 (2005). We *affirm.*

On March 7, 2003, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals issued a decision denying May’s claim for an increased disability rating for his sciatic nerve condition, and also denying his claim that his other injuries were service-connected. In June 2003, May filed a motion for revision and reconsideration of that decision. Specifically, he argued that the board’s decision should be revised because it constituted clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”), or alternatively, that a motion for reconsideration should be granted. In separate decisions, the board denied May’s motion for revision on grounds of CUE, and it also denied his motion for reconsideration of the underlying decision. May appealed both decisions to the Veterans Court, which held that the board lacked jurisdiction to entertain the CUE claim because the direct appeal of the board’s decision was still pending. Accordingly, the Veterans Court vacated the board’s denial of the CUE claim and remanded it to be held in abeyance pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1410.

Section 20.1410 requires the board to stay a motion for revision of a decision on grounds of CUE if the underlying board decision is pending appeal. The board’s *925March 7 decision was not yet final and, in fact, the direct appeal from that case is still pending before the Veterans Court. Thus, the board did not have jurisdiction to entertain May’s motion for revision on grounds of CUE, and the Veteran’s Court ruling is correct.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WILLIAM HENRY MOORE, JR., 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman, 

District Judge. (4:00-cr-00016-JBF-2) 

Submitted: January 9, 2009 Decided: February 13, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

William Henry Moore, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Scott W. Putney, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

William Henry Moore, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying Moore’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for 

reduction of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Moore, No. 4:00-cr00016-JBF-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 25, 2008). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 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 Fitmedia Inc. for the three months ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shouren Zhao, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

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

* information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our financial condition and results of operations.

January 15, 2008
     /s/ Shouren ZhaoShouren ZhaoChairman and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---
§ 1738.105 Priorities for approving assistance. ( a ) The Agency will compare and evaluate all applications for assistance and shall give priority to applications in the manner set out in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, which shall be scored as outlined in a notice published in the Federal Register. (Note that for applications containing multiple proposed funded service areas, the percentage will be calculated combining all proposed funded service areas.) ( 1 ) Applicant's providing broadband service to rural areas that do not have access to service of at least 10 Mbps upstream and 1 Mbps downstream.
( 2 ) Projects that provide the maximum level of broadband service to the greatest proportion of rural households.
( 3 ) Projects that: ( i ) Serve rural areas: ( A ) With a population of less than 10,000 permanent residents;
( B ) Are experiencing outmigration and have adopted a strategic community investment plan under section 379H(d) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008v) that includes considerations for improving and expanding broadband service;
( C ) With a high percentage of low-income families or persons (as defined in section 501(b) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1471(b)));
( D ) That are isolated from other significant population centers; or
( E ) That provide rapid and expanded deployment of fixed and mobile broadband on cropland and ranchland within a service territory for use in various applications of precision agriculture; and
( ii ) Were developed with the participation of, and will receive a substantial portion of the funding for the project from two or more stakeholders, including: ( A ) State, local, and tribal governments;
( B ) Nonprofit institutions; and
( C ) Community anchor institutions, such public libraries, schools, institutions of higher education, health care facilities, private entities, philanthropic organizations and cooperatives.
( 4 ) New construction projects requesting no refinancing.
( b ) The Agency may assign special consideration priority points that will be issued in a notice in the Federal Register with respect to any funding opportunity.
( c ) With respect to two or more applications that have the same priority, as outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the Agency shall give priority to the application that requests the least amount of grant funding as calculated based on the total amount of grant funds requested.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Cardiac Science Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Hinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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

                                                /s/ JOHN R. HINSON
                                              --------------------------------
                                              John R. Hinson
                                              Chief Executive Officer

    Date: November 9, 2006
P. 1 

# OAR Box 1865 Prepped byCharmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 44 ) IV-E-32 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 12/3/20089:15:28AM

Sheet 44of 105P. 2 

# RADIA N 

# A-83-2 7 CORPORATIO N T„

TELEPHON E CAL L REPOR T - INDUSTRIA L BOILE RS0 2
DATE : Novembe r 4 , 198 6 TO : Ji mCoulthar d

Rile yStoke r Corporatio n Pos t Offic e Bo x54 7 Worcester , M H 0161 3 (617 ) 852-710 0 FROM : J . Thoma s Waddel l SUBJECT : FB C a t Genera l Motors , Ft . Wayne , IN
Mr . Coulthar d provide d th e followin g information :
o 2 FB C units ; 150,00 0 pp heac h o start-up i n Decembe r 198 6 Ac-fw/>L
- WITI4L
- s7*/er-^» " /-^ oc wH/7 . o circulatin g be d o burn s bituminou s coa l o di d no t kno wsulfu r conten t o r desig n SO - remova l

Progres s Center/320 0 E . Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso n Hwy./P.O . Bo x13001-.'Researc h Triangl e Park . N.C . 27709/(919)541-910 0P. 3


# RILEY RILE YSTOKE R

CORPORATIO N POS TOFFIC E BO

XW* 204 0 WORCESTER , MASSACHUSETT S 0161 3 -204 0 (617)852-7100 TELE

X920426 Jul y14 , 198 /
J . Thoma s Waddel l Radia nCorporatio n Progres s Cente r 320 0 E . Chape l Hil l Rd./Nelso nHwy . P.O . Bo x1300 0 Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 2770 9 RE : You r lette r o f Jun e 29 , 198 7 Dea r Mr . Waddell : Pleas e fin d enclose d copie s o f th e telephon e cal l report s tha t yo u sen t t o me . Th e informatio npertainin g t o ou r Universit yo f Missour i contrac t i s confirme d a s bein g correct . I hav e annotate d th e informatio npertainin g t o ou r Genera l Motor s contrac t t o brin g i t u p t o dat e and provid e missin g data . Pleas e contac t m e shoul d yo u nee d anyfurthe r information . 

### ^ C^jUtLsm-mj

. Sincerely , RILE YSTOKE RCORPORATION Ji mCoulthar d JC/ka j Enclosure s

An Ashland

Technology

Company
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1427.6 Disbursement of MALs. ( a ) Individual producers may request loans from: ( 1 ) FSA County Service Centers;
( 2 ) Loan servicing agents; or
( 3 ) An approved cotton clerk who has entered into a written agreement with CCC on a form prescribed by CCC.
( b ) Loan proceeds may be disbursed by CCC or a cotton commercial bank.
( c ) The loan documents will not be presented for disbursement unless the cotton covered by the mortgage or pledged as security is eligible under § 1427.5. If the cotton was not eligible cotton at the time of disbursement, the total amount disbursed under the loan, and charges plus interest will be refunded promptly.
[67 FR 64459, Oct. 18, 2002, as amended at 73 FR 65720, Nov. 5, 2008; 80 FR 139, Jan. 2, 2015]
CERTIFICATIONS



I, Helen C. Cary, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Midnight Candle Company;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



6.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:  October 29, 2007



/s/ Helen C. Cary

Helen C. Cary

President
| **Consolidated Statements of Shareholders' Equity (Parenthetical) (USD $)** | 12 Months Ended |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
||
| Common Stock, Dividends, Per Share, Cash Paid                               | $ 0.91          | $ 0.80 | $ 0.72 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Aggregate dividends paid during the period for each share of common stock outstanding.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher SEC -Name Regulation S-X (SX) -Number 210 -Section 04 -Article 3Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 505 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.3-04) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6959260&loc=d3e187085-122770
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_CommonStockDividendsPerShareCashPaid**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**num:perShareItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
2006-0372.

#### State v. Stone.

Hamilton App. No. C-040323, 2005-Ohio-5206. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer and Lanzinger, JJ., dissent.
§ 1784.18 Application for Pre-development grants. ( a ) Entities identified in § 1784.8 of this part may submit a completed Standard Form 424, Standard Form 424A, and Standard Form 424B to apply for funding for pre-development costs. Pre-development costs are described in § 1784.10 (a)(1)(iii) of this part.
( b ) Funding for pre-development grants will be allocated annually by RUS, DEC, and ANTHC according to the prioritization list described in § 1784.16(b) of this part.
( c ) Projects submitted for design only under the pre-development grant, must have RUS approval of a planning or pre-development report prior to consideration for funding.