alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(June 17, 1969)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eddie Brown, Appellant.

Judgement rendered on April 24, 1968, convicting defendant, after trial, of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree and possession of a dangerous weapon, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the interests of justice, and a new trial ordered. We believe that the evidence at the trial presented a close question as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense. The credibility of the defendant was sharply in issue. It was for the purpose of attacking defendant’s credibility that the Assistant District Attorney questioned defendant concerning the details of his 1941 conviction of rape in the second degree. The questioning did not stop there. The cross-examiner on several occasions emphasized the fact that this rape conviction arose out of' an indictment for incest allegedly based on sexual relations between the defendant and his 14-year-old sister. But, as the evidence in this record discloses, the female in that case was not his sister. In fact there was no blood relationship whatever. Unfortunately, the cross-examiner did not know this at the time he questioned the defendant. It became apparent later in the trial. Nevertheless, since this kind of crime is a particularly revolting one, it is difficult to measure the exact impact that the disclosure had on the jury’s evaluation of the defendants credibility as it related to his claim of self-defense. Further, the verdicts of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree are conceded by the People to be contradictory, A finding by the jury that, on the evidence presented, the defendant was guilty of one of the counts necessarily impliéd that it found the defendant not guilty on the other count. The trial- court erred in submitting, both counts to the jury with instructions that they could find defendant guilty of one or the other, or both. The charge should have been in the alternative. *(People*v. *Boddie,*28 A D 2d 724.) None of the modifications of the verdict suggested by the People in their brief would be proper, as we believe that, under all the circumstances, a new trial should be held. Concur—Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, McGivern, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 71 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00766-MHT-TFM Document 71 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 2 of 2
2811.002 Policy.

(a) Consistent with the policy expressed in FAR 11.002(b), the metric system is the preferred system

of weights and measures and shall be used in DOJ solicitations and contracts.

(b) When acquiring products or services, the requirements of FAR 11.002(d)

(1) and DOJ sustainability policies and procedures are to be followed.

Parent topic: PART 2811 - DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS
#### § 1017.6 Authority.

The Secretary, or his or her designee, determines whether information is UCNI. These determinations are incorporated into guidance that each Reviewing Official and Denying Official consults in his or her review of a document or material to decide whether the document or material contains UCNI.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

American Homes 4 Rent

Agoura Hills, CA

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-197921 on Form S-3ASR and Registration Statement No. 333-190349 on Form S-8 of American Homes 4 Rent (the “Company”) of our reports dated March 2, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of American Homes 4 Rent internal control over financial reporting, which appear in the Form 10-K filed by the Company on March 2, 2015.

 

 

/s/ BDO USA, LLP

Los Angeles, CA

May 8, 2015

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1994
<CASH>                                           32227
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           16479
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2350
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     150529
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          109007
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             94761
<LOANS>                                         566786
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4855
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  901741
<DEPOSITS>                                      746414
<SHORT-TERM>                                     41050
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               6215
<LONG-TERM>                                       3000
<COMMON>                                         14762
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       90300
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  901741
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  32983
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                10608
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  1249
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 44840
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               17456
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 719
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            26665
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     (19)
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (176)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  19187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  11450
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       11450
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7594
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### NUSSBAUM, Respondent, v. VOGELGESANG, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 6, 1915.)

Action by Clara E. Nussbaum against Theodore J. Vogelgesang.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event. Held, that the verdict of the jury is against the weight of the evidence upon the question of assault.
#### Carol Weckelman, Respondent, v Gerlad Weckelman, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 4.)

Order unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in *Weckelman v Weckelman*(78 AD2d 995). (Appeal from order of Livingston County Family Court — amend order, dismiss counterclaim.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Doerr and Moule, JJ.
#### § 993.89 Effective time.

The provisions of this subpart, as well as any amendments to this subpart, shall become effective at such time as the Secretary may declare, and shall continue in force until terminated, or during suspension, in one of the ways specified in § 993.90.
3025.7003 Contract clauses.

Unless an exception under (HSAR) 48 CFR 3025.7002–2(a), (b), (e) or (f) applies, insert the clause at

(HSAR) 48 CFR 3052.225–70, Requirement for Use of Certain Domestic Commodities, in

solicitations, exercising of an option, contract modifications that add new items (or which make a

cardinal change) and contracts with a value exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold when

procuring any item covered under (HSAR) 48 CFR 3025.7002–1(a) or (b).

Parent topic: Subpart 3025.70—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Restrictions on Foreign

Acquisition
Exhibit 32.1

       CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
           OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the quarterly report of Simclar, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Barry J. Pardon, President of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purpose of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

                  (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.

         This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                /s/ Barry J. Pardon
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Barry J. Pardon, President
                                            Simclar, Inc.
                                            November 18, 2005
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RUSSELL E. GARNER, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

vs. * CASE NUMBER: 01:06cv781-MHT

*

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE*

COMPANY, *

*

 Defendant. *

RESPONSE BY DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER

COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, on behalf of the Defendant, Progressive Direct

Insurance Company, and responds to this Court’s March 26, 2007 Order as follows:

1. This is a case of first impression. In the answer to Plaintiff’s complaint the

Defendant affirmatively averred that “the Plaintiff was not legally entitled to recover

damages against the alleged tortfeasor.” The phrase, “legally entitled to recover

damages” was recently scrutinized in a decision by the Alabama Court of Civil

Appeals. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mason, 2007 Ala.

Civ. App. Lexis 31, the issue was whether the two year statute of limitations was a

defense that could be asserted by the insurer as a defense to its insured’s claim for

uninsured motorist benefits. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals answered that

question in the affirmative. 

2. The opinion in State Farm v. Mason was released on January 12, 2007, some nine

days after this court’s January 3, 2007 deadline to amend the pleadings. Therefore

at the time this Defendant filed its answer and until January 12, 2007 a defense based

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 30 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 1 of 3
upon the two year statute of limitations for tort actions would not have been

recognized as a valid, viable defense to the Plaintiff’s cause of action. 

3. While this Defendant recognizes that this court’s September 28, 2006 Scheduling

Order imposed a deadline of February 12, 2007 in which to file dispositive motions

the filing of Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion on February 28, 2007 has not

prejudiced the Plaintiff in any way.

4. Lastly, whether or not this Defendant conducted an investigation to determine fault

or whether this Defendant instituted legal action to recover money from the

uninsured motorist has absolutely no bearing on the legal issue presented in the

Summary Judgment Motion.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, for the reasons set forth in its Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc.11) this Defendant requests the Court to grant summary judgment on all claims

presented by Plaintiff, Russell E. Garner.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

s/Jeffrey G. Hunter 

ALEX L. HOLTSFORD (HOL048)

JEFFREY G. HUNTER(HUN028)

Attorney’s for Progressive Direct Insurance

Company

OF COUNSEL

Nix, Holtsford, Gilliland,

Higgins, & Hitson, P.C.

P.O. Box 4128

Montgomery, AL 36103

334-215-8585

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 30 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served via first class mail, postage prepaid on

March 29, 2007 to the following:

David W. Rousseau

211 W. Adams Street

Dothan, Alabama 36303

s/Jeffrey G. Hunter 

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 30 Filed 03/29/2007 Page 3 of 3
120 STAT. 1756 PUBLIC LAW 109–322—OCT. 11, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5539 (S. 3617):

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 109–639 (Comm. on Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 12, considered and passed House.

Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–322

109th Congress

An Act

To reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

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 ‘‘North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2006’’.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 7(c) of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act

(16 U.S.C. 4406(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year 2007’’ and

inserting ‘‘each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012’’.

Approved October 11, 2006.

North American

Wetlands

Conservation

Reauthorization

Act of 2006.

16 USC 4401

note.

Oct. 11, 2006

[H.R. 5539]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

M IDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABA M A

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

POST OFFICE BOX 711

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101-0711

DEBRA P. HACKETT, CLERK

TELEPHONE (334) 954-3600

September 25, 2006

NOTICE OF ERROR

To: All Counsel of Record

Case Style: May's Distributing Company, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc. et al

Case Number: 2:06cv00702-MEF

Referenced Pleading: Reply Brief

Docket Entry Number: 47

The referenced pleading was filed on ***September 22, 2006*** in this case and 

is hereby STRICKEN as a duplicate and erroneous docket entry. This pleading was E-filed

by counsel.

Parties are instructed to disregard #47 docketing entry and refer to docket entry # 46 for

correct entry.

Case 2:06-cv-00702-MEF-TFM Document 50 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Samuel P. Malone, Respondent, v. Dimco Corporation et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Appeal dismissed as academic, without costs. Memorandum: The issue in this case is the right of petitioner to inspect the books and records of the respondent corporations. Petitioner had *876been a director of all the corporations but subsequently failed to be re-elected a director. On the argument of the appeal we were informed that subsequent to the order appealed from a motion was made at Special Term by each of the respondent corporations to vacate and annul the order on appeal, or in the alternative, for an order granting a rehearing. That motion has now been heard and decided and petitioner is granted a hearing to determine his right to inspection. As indicated on the argument and in the briefs of the partifes, this subsequent action of Special Term makes the appeal before us moot and it is therefore dismissed. (Appeal from order of Monroe Trial Term permitting inspection of books.) Present■—■ Goldman, P. J., Del Veeehio, Marsh, Gabrielli, and Moule, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Pension Income Fund XXIII 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000764543
<NAME> CENTURY PENSION INC0ME FUND XXIII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,402
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          58,545
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          6,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,462)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,287
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,572
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,591
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (22.18)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Henry W. Guilshan, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Memorandum by

the Court. Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 2, 1967, which determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits effective July 12, 1967 on the ground that he was unavailable for employment. Claimant, a foreign collection clerk, lost his job when it was determined by his employer that he was over its mandatory retirement age of 65. Claimant confined his job-seeking efforts to financial and brokerage institutions, although he was aware of the fact that most of these institutions had the same mandatory retirement rule, and failed to respond to advertisements for clerical help by other types of establishments “ because it’s not exactly the work I been doing” and “my experience is in foreign collection.” “Whether a claimant’s efforts to secure employment are sufficiently diligent to satisfy the requirement of availability is a question of fact to be determined by the board and its determination, if rendered upon substantial evidence must be sustained.” *(Matter of Knobloch*[Catherwood], 28 A D 2d 765, 766.) The record fully substantiates the board’s finding that the claimant failed to seek employment with reasonable diligence and failed to demonstrate his availability for employment. Decision affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Staley, Jr., and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
#### § 1703.101 Scope.

This part contains the Board's regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
25.7902-4     Procedures.   (S-90) If items require access to       controlled technical information, the product specialist will update the       Purchase Order Text (POT) to include Standard Text Objects (STOs) RD002,       Covered Defense Information Applies, and RQ032, Export Control of       Technical Data.       (S-91) For manual acquisitions, the       contracting officer shall—       (1) Confirm that the POT contains STOs       RQ032 and RD002 to notify offerors the item requires DLA controlling       authority approval to access export-controlled technical information       contained within DLA Systems; and       (2) Unless one of the exceptions at PGI       25.7902-4(S-90) applies, verify that the offeror and any source(s) of       supply it will use for contract performance have DLA controlling authority       approval to access export-controlled technical data within the cFolders.       To identify contractors with DLA controlling authority approval to access       export-controlled technical data**—**       (i) See the Business Decision Analytics       (BDA) Supplier Risk Analysis by CAGE Code Model in the BDA Job Aid Folder (https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/InfoOps/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?FolderCTID=0x012000D3D259D71343A94E992AA17310CB0231&viewid=bb1b25a6%2D56d8%2D4398%2Dac48%2D5f987c946cca&id=%2Fsites%2FInfoOps%2FShared%20Documents%2FEBS%20ONLINE%20HELP%2FePROCUREMENT%2FBDA); or       (ii) If the BDA Job Aid Folder is       unavailable, contact the DLA controlling authority at email DLAJ344DataCustodian@dla.mil.       (S-92)(1) For manual acquisitions, the       contracting officer does not need to verify that an offeror and any       source(s) of supply it will use for contract performance have DLA       controlling authority approval to access export-controlled technical data       if an exception at PGI 25.7902-4(S-90) applies.       (S-93) For automated acquisitions, the       Auto Evaluation logic module will follow the enhanced validation       procedures and requirements identified in the DLA Master Solicitation for       Automated Simplified Acquisitions. To be eligible for award in the       automated system, the offeror and any source(s) of supply it will use for       contract performance must have an active JCP certification and DLA       controlling authority approval to access export-controlled data. **Parent topic:** SUBPART 25.79 – EXPORT CONTROL
Case 2:06-mj-00083-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00083-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00083-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00083-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00083-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00083-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-mj-00083-SRW Document 1 Filed 08/22/2006 Page 7 of 7
2007-1934.

#### Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm.

Public Utilities Commission, No. 07-259-TP-BLS. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Upon consideration of the joint motion for procedural stay,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted.
Case 2:06-cr-00205-WHA-CSC Document 43 Filed 02/01/2007 Page 1 of 1