alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
142 So.2d 406

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Elvin Haral SCHELLINGER.

No. 45978.

June 4, 1962.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1962.

Tom F. Phillips, of Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ralph L. Roy, Asst. Dist, Atty., for appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The defendant is appealing from his conviction and sentence on a bill of information charging him with theft and relies for the reversal thereof on several bills of exceptions reserved during the trial of the case.

This court can grant the defendant no relief' on this appeal„..since no motion for a new trial was made in the court below as *233required by R.S. 15:5591 and there appears no error patent on the face of the record.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence .are affirmed.

1

. The pertinent portion of this section provides that “No new trial can be granted on appeal unless a motion for same has been made and refused in the lower court * * *.’* See, State v. Ramsey, La., 141 So.2d 375.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 23 

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2013 

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. PALAZZO, 

Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, Mr. TERRY, Mr. CARTER, 

Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FARENTHOLD, Mr. JONES, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mrs. ROBY, Mr. PEARCE, 

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. CONAWAY, and Mr. FLEMING) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with 

fertilization. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sanctity of Human 

5 Life Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DECLARATION. 

7 In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, includ8 ing Congress’ power under article I, section 8 of the Con9 stitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Jan 05, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H23.IH H23

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 23 IH

1 gress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amend2 ment to the Constitution of the United States— 

3 (1) the Congress declares that— 

4 (A) the right to life guaranteed by the 

5 Constitution is vested in each human being, and 

6 is the paramount and most fundamental right 

7 of a person; and 

8 (B) the life of each human being begins 

9 with fertilization, cloning, or its functional 

10 equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function 

11 or disability, defect, stage of biological develop12 ment, or condition of dependency, at which time 

13 every human being shall have all the legal and 

14 constitutional attributes and privileges of 

15 personhood; and 

16 (2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, 

17 each State, the District of Columbia, and all United 

18 States territories have the authority to protect the 

19 lives of all human beings residing in its respective 

20 jurisdictions. 

21 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

22 For purposes of this Act: 

23 (1) FERTILIZATION.—The term ‘‘fertilization’’ 

24 means the process of a human spermatozoan pene25 trating the cell membrane of a human oocyte to creVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:39 Jan 05, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H23.IH H23

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with 
3 

•HR 23 IH

1 ate a human zygote, a one-celled human embryo, 

2 which is a new unique human being. 

3 (2) CLONING.—The term ‘‘cloning’’ means the 

4 process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, that 

5 combines an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a so6 matic cell to make a human embryo. 

7 (3) HUMAN; HUMAN BEING.—The terms 

8 ‘‘human’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include each and 

9 every member of the species homo sapiens at all 

10 stages of life, beginning with the earliest stage of de11 velopment, created by the process of fertilization, 

12 cloning, or its functional equivalent. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with
#### Edgar Moser, Inc., Petitioner, v State Division of Human Rights, Respondent.

Petitioner is given an opportunity, if it so chooses, to appear by counsel with respect to this proceeding within 20 days from the date of the order entered herein (see CPLR 321, subd [a]), and determination of this proceeding is held in abeyance. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Fein, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
MOTION DOCKET

98-1074.

#### State v. Jalowiec.

Lorain App. No. 96CA006445. On motion to withdraw as counsel. Motion denied.

*Sua sponte,*it is ordered that appellant’s merit brief be filed within seven days.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James F. Meyers, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered May 18, 1979, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a definite term of imprisonment of six months. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to probation for a period of five years. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, to fix the conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated. Damiani, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2568 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2568

            To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2013

 Mr. Tierney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To reauthorize the Essex National Heritage Area.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Essex National Heritage Area 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ESSEX NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    Division II of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 
1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 104-333) is amended--
            (1) in section 507, by striking ``September 30, 2012'' and 
        inserting ``September 30, 2027''; and
            (2) in section 508(a), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and 
        inserting ``$20,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas Blake, plaintiff in error, v. The Alton Railroad Company, defendant in error.

Gen. No. 37,299.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

*617Irving G. Zazove and S. E. Quindry, for plaintiff in error. Winston, Strawn & Shaw, for defendant in error; Silas H. Strawn, Chas. J. Calderini and Thomas A. Reynolds, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Wilson

delivered the opinion of the court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6189

JIMMIE HUGENE WOODSON, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GOVERNOR JIM GILMORE; WARDEN ALTON

BASKERVILLE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.

(CA-00-952-2)

Submitted: March 9, 2001 Decided: March 20, 2001

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmie H. Woodson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmie H. Woodson, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000)

complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Woodson v.

Gilmore, No. CA-00-952-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2001). Furthermore, we

find this appeal frivolous for purposes of 28 U.S.C.A. §

1915(e)(2), (g) (West Supp. 2000). We deny Woodson’s motions for

release from incarceration, his motion for transfer, and his motion

to dismiss counsel appointed by the State of Virginia. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Pizza Carnival Corporation, Appellant, v. Jefferson Shopping Center, Inc., et al., Respondents,

Order and judgment (one paper) of the

Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 15, 1966, reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The findings of fact implicit or contained in the opinion below are reversed. Plaintiff instituted this action *inter alia*to enjoin defendant Jet Age Restaurant, Inc., *736from operating and maintaining, and defendant Jefferson Shopping Center, Inc., from permitting the operation and maintenance of, a drive-in ice cream, hamburger and barbecued chicken business in violation of a restrictive covenant contained in plaintiff’s lease which granted plaintiff the exclusive right to maintain a restaurant-luncheonette and pizzeria. The complaint was dismissed at'the end of plaintiff’s proofs on the issue of violation of the covenant, on the ground that Jet was not operating a restaurant, luncheonette or pizzeria and that plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of violation of the covenant. In our opinion, under all the circumstances adduced, plaintiff established prima facie that Jet’s type of operation is similar and competitive with plaintiff’s luncheonette and take-out operation insofar as Jet purveys and/or sells the following items: the cheese sandwich, the shrimp in the basket and chicken other than barbecued chicken and cold picnic chicken. Accordingly, in our opinion, plaintiff made out a prima facie case of a limited violation of the covenant, as herein indicated (cf. *Arista Luncheonette*v. *Haraan Operating Corp.,*1 A D 2d 681, affd. 1 N Y 2d 724; *Weiss*v. *Mayflower Doughnut Corp.,*1 N Y 2d 310). Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
98-664.

#### Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Adjustment Serv. Corp.

On April 7, 1998, movant, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed with this court a motion for an order to show cause why respondent should not be punished for contempt for failure or refusal, without just cause or just excuse, to obey the commands of the court to appear in response to the subpoena *duces tecum*issued by the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and to produce the documents the production of which was ordered by the subpoena *duces tecum.*On April 17, 1998, respondent filed a response to the motion. On May 27, 1998, this court granted the motion to the extent that respondent was ordered to show cause in writing within twenty days of the date of the order why respondent should not be punished for contempt. On June 16, 1998, respondent filed a response to the show cause order, a motion to quash subpoena *duces tecum,*and a request for oral argument. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*that movant, Cincinnati Bar Association, be and, is hereby, ordered to show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on or before twenty days from the date of this order why this case should not be dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Randolph Gress, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Innophos, Inc. (the registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants
other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



|                    |  |     |  |                                                                                  
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ RANDOLPH GRESS                                                               
|                    |  |     |  | Randolph Gress Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
2006-0290.

#### Jokic v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co.

Lake App. No. 2004-L-135, 2005-Ohio-7044. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. On February 10, 2006, appellant filed a notice that a motion to certify a conflict was pending in the court of appeals and, pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(A), this court stayed consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this appeal. Whereas appellant has neither notified this court that the court of appeals determined that a conflict does not exist as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4)(B) nor filed a copy of the court of appeals’ order certifying the existence of a conflict as provided by S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(4XC),

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that appellant show cause within fourteen days of the date of this entry why this court should not proceed to consider the jurisdictional memoranda in this appeal pursuant to S.CtPrae.R. 111(6).
Exhibit
10.35


 


As disclosed in the
Company’s 2004 Proxy Statement, the Board of Directors approved, at its August
21, 2003 meeting, a special service credit applicable to William H. Joyce for
his actual service credit earned during employment with Hercules.


 


This special service
credit was approved to be used to calculate a pension benefit using the Pension
Plan of Hercules (but payable from the assets of Hercules and not the Hercules
Incorporated Pension Plan Trust).  The
special service credit granted was five years for each full year of actual
credited service under the Hercules Rules of Service up to a maximum of three
years actual credited service.  The
maximum additional special service credit grant was 15 years.  This special benefit is in addition to any
benefit earned under the Pension Plan of Hercules.  The estimated net present value of this
service enhancement was $4.7 million when granted.  As a result of variable compensation awarded
in 2004 for services rendered in 2003, the estimated net present value is
approximately $5.7 million (see Footnote 7 of Compensation of Executive
Officers).
149 So.2d 768

#### Harold DANZIGER v. EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN and Mente & Company, Inc.

No. 46538.

Feb. 18, 1963.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### § 29.6092 Rule 6.

The grade assigned to any lot of tobacco shall be a true representation of the tobacco at the time of inspection and certification. If, at any time, it is found that a lot of tobacco does not comply with the specifications of the grade previously assigned, it shall not thereafter be represented as such grade.
Exhibit 23


                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants
                    -----------------------------------------

        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
   incorporation by reference of our reports dated February 11, 1997 (except
   with respect to the matter discussed in Note 15 as to which the date is
   March 12, 1997), included in or incorporated by reference into Thermo
   Instrument Systems Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
   December 28, 1996, into the Company's previously filed Registration
   Statements as follows: Registration Statement No. 33-14980 on Form S-8,
   Registration Statement No. 33-16461 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No.
   33-14974 on Form S-8, Post Effective Amendment to Registration Statement on
   Form S-4 No. 33-32579-02 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-33577
   on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-36221 on Form S-8, Registration
   Statement No. 33-37866 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-42270 on
   Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-69526 on Form S-3, Registration
   Statement No. 33-65275 on Form S-8, and Registration Statement No. 33-37559
   on Form S-8.



                                                Arthur Andersen LLP



   Boston, Massachusetts
   March 19, 1997
PUBLIC LAW 108–369—OCT. 25, 2004 118 STAT. 1749

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2864:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Oct. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 8, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 108–369

108th Congress

An Act

To extend for eighteen months the period for which chapter 12 of title 11, United

States Code, is reenacted.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Family Farmer Bankruptcy

Relief Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. EIGHTEEN-MONTH EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR WHICH

CHAPTER 12 OF TITLE 11, UNITED STATES CODE, IS

REENACTED.

(a) AMENDMENTS.—Section 149 of title I of division C of Public

Law 105–277 (11 U.S.C. 1201 note) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘January 1, 2004’’ each place that term

appears and inserting ‘‘July 1, 2005’’; and

(2) in subsection (a)—

(A) by striking ‘‘June 30, 2003’’ and inserting

‘‘December 31, 2003’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘July 1, 2003’’ and inserting ‘‘January

1, 2004’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection

(a) are deemed to have taken effect on January 1, 2004.

Approved October 25, 2004.

11 USC 1201

note.

11 USC 1201–

1208, 1221–1231.

11 USC 101 note.

Family Farmer

Bankruptcy

Relief Act of

2004.

Oct. 25, 2004

[S. 2864]
#### § 30.13 Air-cure.

To cure tobacco under natural atmospheric conditions without the use of fire, except for the purpose of preventing pole burn (house burn) in damp weather.
§ 3300.67 Application for certificate for new equipment produced or assembled in a foreign country which is a contracting party to the ATP. An application for certification of equipment shall be submitted to the ATP manager by an officer in the organization of the owner of the equipment. Copies of the Form, Application for U.S. ATP Certificate for New Equipment Produced or Assembled in a Foreign Country Which is a Contracting Party, may be obtained by a request to the ATP manager. The following information must be submitted in the application: ( a ) A statement that the owner is a domestic owner, with the name, address and telephone number of its principal office, and the name and title of the person to contact.
( b ) If the operator of the equipment is different from the owner, the name and address of the operator.
( c ) The type of equipment (intermodal freight container, trailer, semi-trailer, railcar, or truck.)
( d ) Total number of units of equipment.
( e ) Definition of the equipment for which certification is sought, referring to ATP, Annex 1, paragraph 3, and Appendix 4.
( f ) Name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer of the equipment, and the name and title of the person to contact.
( g ) The manufacturer's make and model number for the equipment, including a brief description of the equipment and any brochure on the equipment which might be available.
( h ) The original or certified true copy of the test report for the reference equipment.
( i ) The original or certified true copy of the Foreign-ATP certificate issued for the equipment.
( j ) A statement that each unit of equipment, before it is put into service, will have affixed to it a certification plate and distinguishing mark as specified in ATP, Annex 1, Appendix 1, paragraphs 4 and 5, and Appendixes 3 and 4.
( k ) A list showing, for each unit of equipment, the serial number of the body and the corresponding owner's equipment identification number.