alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39613.

#### POWELL v. THE STATE.

Franktjm, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of forgery. His motion for new trial, as amended, was overruled. He excepted. *Held:*

1. Defendant, by special ground 1 of his motion for new trial, contends that the court erred in allowing certain testimony to remain in evidence over his objection that the testimony was a conclusion. This is the only objection to the testimony. This court held in *West Lumber Co. v. Schnuck,*85 Ga. App. 385, 388 (4) (69 SE2d 577): “Ground 5 assigns error on the admission of certain evidence over the objection that the question called for a conclusion. This objection is so vague and general that it was not error for the court to overrule it and admit the testimony. *Harris v. State,*69 Ga. App. 872 (27 SE2d 51).” To the same effect see *Bernd Co. v. Rahn,*94 Ga. App. 713 (96 SE2d 185); *Slater v. Russell,*100 Ga. App. 563 (112 SE2d 178). Accordingly, special ground 1 of the motion is without merit.

2. In special ground 2 of his motion the defendant contends, *727that the court erred in requiring a witness to answer certain questions. The ground itself shows that there was no objection to the questions propounded to the witness, nor any motion made to rule out the testimony. “An assignment of error on admission of evidence, which fails to state that it was admitted over objection urged before the court, and the specific grounds of objection that were then stated to the court, does not present any question for decision.” *Justice v. Warner,*178 Ga. 579 (4) (173 SE 703). See *Williams v.*State, 186 Ga. 251 (197 SE 838). See also *Pulliam v. State,*196 Ga. 782 (6, 7) (28 SE2d 139); *Childs v. Ponder,*117 Ga. 553 (43 SE 986); *Daniel v. Etheredge,*198 Ga. 191 (5) (31 SE2d 181). This ground is without merit.

Decided October 8, 1962.

*Joe W. Rowland, B. B. Hayes,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. W. Larsen, Jr., Solicitor General,*contra.

3. Special ground 3 complains that the court erred in failing to charge, without a written request, as follows: “An intent to defraud is an essential ingredient in the offense of uttering and publishing a forgery, and the court in this case having omitted to properly instruct the jury that in order to constitute the offense, the intent to defraud must be shown.” Since it is obvious that the above quoted language was not proper as an instruction to the jury, the court did not err in overruling this ground of the motion. *American Iron &c. Co. v. National Cylinder Gas Co.,*105 Ga. App. 458 (125 SE2d 106), and cases therein cited.

4. The court did not err in overruling any of the other special grounds of the motion for any reason assigned. The evidence authorized the verdict finding the defendant guilty.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
NUMBER 13

- 1 7

- 00 669

- C R



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

LINCOLN WADE KILSBY

, A PPELLANT

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

.

On a ppeal from the 3 6 th District Court

of San Patricio County, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Currently pending before the Court is appellant's motion for pro se access to the

appellate record. Appellant's counsel has filed an Anders brief herein and appellant has

been unable to examine the record so that he can file a pro se brief.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the trial court ensure that appellant has2

the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record on or before April 23, 2018 , and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court notify this Court as to the date upon which the

appellate record was made available to appellant. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313

(Tex. Crim . App. 2014).

Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate record was first

made available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall have twenty

days thereafter to file its response, if any.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed the

12th day of April , 20 1 8

.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Amended

Pursuant
to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), Bing Yeh, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



In
Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 18th day of January, 2008.

|/s/ Bing Yeh                                   |  | 
|---------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Bing Yeh President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has been provided to Silicon Storage
Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
#### Setaro Motors, Inc. *v.*Leonard Intelisano

King, C. J., Murphy, Alcorn, Comley and House, Js.

Argued April 14

decided May 5, 1964

*Edward B. Winnick,*Avith whom, on the brief, were *Alexander Winnick, Arnold M. Potash*and *David W. Skolnick,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Harold M. Mulvey,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*591Alcorn, J.

This appeal from a judgment rendered after a court trial presents nothing but an attack on the court’s finding of facts and the conclusions therefrom. In disregard of appellate rules, the defendant seeks to add fifty-eight paragraphs to the finding for no better reason than that they relate the testimony of his own witnesses. The lack of precision in the requests is emphasized by the fact that four paragraphs are sought to be added which appear verbatim in the finding. We are again required to criticize such a method of attack as the defendant has pursued. *Eastern Sportswear Co.*v. *S. Augstein & Co.,*141 Conn. 420, 422, 106 A.2d 476; *Maggi*v. *Mendillo,*147 Conn. 663, 668, 165 A.2d 603*Megin*v. *Carney,*148 Conn. 130, 132, 167 A.2d 855.

The ease turns entirely on the question of credibility. The defendant bought a used truck equipped with a snow plow from the plaintiff, and $1200 is still owed on the purchase price. The truck was sold under an unconditional thirty-day guarantee. The defendant refused to pay the balance of the purchase price and sought to recover the cost of rebuilding the motor, claiming a breach of the guarantee. The finding is not subject to correction. The court has not found that the truck was defective when it was sold or that it became defective in the manner claimed by the defendant within the thirty-day guarantee period. On the contrary, it concluded that the truck was in good operating condition on the date of the sale, that the balance of the purchase price is due and owing to the plaintiff, and that the defendant failed to prove either that the vehicle needed any repairs within the thirty-day guarantee period or that rebuilding the motor, which was done some four months after the purchase, was attributable to the condition of the vehicle either at *592the time of the sale or at any time within the guarantee period.

The claim that the court erred in refusing to credit the testimony of one of the defendant’s witnesses is without merit. The credibility of witnesses was the trial court’s responsibility. *Banks*v. *Adelman,*144 Conn. 176, 179, 128 A.2d 534.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
# RECEI\11=0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

## DEC 1 1 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

## HEARING DOCf\ET

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In The Matter Of: Michelle Kraemer, Respondent. DocketNo. FAA-2015-2441 CaseNo. 2015-WA-91-0066 Judge Richard C. Goodwin December 10, 2015

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that Brian K. Khan ofthe Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, will appear as counsel ofrecord on behalfofthe Administrator, in the above-captioned matter. BrianaMartino is no longer an attorney ofrecord in this matter. Please serve any future documents to the attention ofBrian K. Khan.

Dated: December 10,2015. Respectfully Submitted,



# 11/k--~~~ BriailK. Khan, Esq. Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Division, Midwest Team 2300 E. DevonAve. Des Plaines, IL 60018Email: brian.k.khan@faa.gov Telephone: (847) 294-7313 (main) (847) 294-7652(direct) (847) 294-7498 (fax)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that I have, this date, served the foregoing Notice ofAppearanceto the following via Overnight Mail:
Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 Judge Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearing, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590
Mr. Brian J. Lawler, Esq. PilotLaw, P.C. 1551 9th Avenue San Diego, California 92101

Dated this lO'h day ofDecember 2015.

Brian K. Khan, Esq.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 137260 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137260 

 COA: 273233 

Berrien CC: 2005-412913-FH 

GEORGE CALVIN PAYNE, III,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 31, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
|WELLS
    FARGO(logo) | Commercial
    Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Floor
401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of June 1, 2015, by and among Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc., as Depositor, Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as General Special Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, as Excluded Mortgage Loan Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, Wilmington Trust, National
Association, as Trustee, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating
Agent and Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C23 (the “Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel
Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer
during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per
the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting
Period.                                                      



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.





|/s/ Daniel Bober         | 
|------------------------ | 
|Daniel Bober             | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 



Together we’ll
go far

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11
 
                    POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
   
                    FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998
    
 
  (Figures and amounts expressed in thousands, except per share and per option
                                    amounts)
 
   
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         09-1998    09-1997
                                                                         -------    -------
<S>      <C>                                                             <C>        <C>
A        Net Income as reported, Canadian GAAP.......................    $54,704    $71,418
B        Items adjusting net income..................................         --     (8,176)
C        Net income, US GAAP (A+B)...................................    $54,704    $63,242
D        Weighted average number of shares outstanding...............     54,235     53,724
E        Options outstanding to purchase equivalent shares...........      2,131      1,587
F        Average exercise price per option...........................    $ 71.27    $ 52.90
G        Average market price per share..............................    $ 63.98    $ 76.00
H        Period end market price per share...........................    $ 52.63    $ 78.50
I        Rate of Return available on option proceeds.................       0.05       0.05
CANADIAN GAAP
         Basic earnings per share (A/D)..............................    $  1.01    $  1.33
         Fully diluted earnings per share
J        Imputed earnings on options proceeds ((E*F*I)/4)............    $ 1,898    $ 1,049
         Fully diluted earnings per share ((A+J)/(D+E))..............    $  1.00    $  1.31
UNITED STATES GAAP
         Basic earnings per share (C/D)..............................    $  1.01    $  1.18
         Fully diluted earnings per share
K        Net additional shares issuable (E-(E*F/G))..................         --        482
         Fully diluted earnings per share (C/(D+K))..................    $  1.01    $  1.17
</TABLE>
    
 
                                       36
1

Ogulei, David

From: Garnett, Kim

Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:47 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: FW: M29 COMPARISONS

Attachments: Final Report RA testing of Xact.doc; Mercury Analysis 080202.doc; Method 29 Report.doc; 

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY 022700.doc

Per your request. 

From: Bivins, Dan 

Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:07 PM 

To: Garnett, Kim 

Subject: FW: M29 COMPARISONS 

From: John Cooper [mailto:jacooper@cooperenvironmental.com] 

Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:33 PM 

To: Bivins, Dan 

Subject: M29 COMPARISONS 

Hi Dan, 

Attached are some early M29 comparison reports. I know we have lots more and I am still looking. Hopefully, this will 

get you started. Call if you have questions on any of this material. 

John 

John A. Cooper, Ph. D. 

President 

Cooper Environmental Services LLC 

10180 SW Nimbus Ave. 

Suite J6 

Portland, OR 97223
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131323 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131323 

 COA: 260141 

Alcona CC: 02-011054-FC 

DARYL DOUGLAS JUSTICE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 18, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0821 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

August 29, 2006 

 Clerk
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of the Guardianship of E.M.D., * From the County Court at Law No. 2

 of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. G1297-CC.

No. 11-20-00042-CV * October 22, 2020

 * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J. 

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

 Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

 sitting by assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason of 

this appeal are taxed against Billie Dean.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         107,465
<SECURITIES>                                    99,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                       628
<INVENTORY>                                     57,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               395,794
<PP&E>                                          22,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 462,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,780
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       328,660
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   462,709
<SALES>                                        326,254
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               329,221
<CGS>                                          183,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 92,770
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,446
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,446
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18808]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Capacity Building Assistance (CBA) To Improve the 
Delivery and Effectiveness of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 
Prevention Services for High-Risk and/or Racial/Ethnicity Minority 
Populations, Program Announcement Number PS09-906, Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.

    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., August 21, 2009 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters To Be Discussed: The meeting will include an initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in 
response to ``Capacity Building Assistance (CBA) to Improve the 
Delivery and Effectiveness of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 
Prevention Services for High-Risk and/or Racial/Ethnicity Minority 
Populations, PS09-906.'' The meeting was initially convened June 15-
18, 2009. A reviewer conflict of interest was confirmed by CDC staff 
during a pre-decisional site visit. The panel will be reconvened to 
review the four affected applications.
    For More Information Contact: Monica Farmer, M.Ed., Public 
Health Analyst, Strategic Science and Program Unit, Office of the 
Director, Coordinating Center for Infectious Diseases, CDC, 1600 
Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-60, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 
(404) 498-2277.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: July 31, 2009.
Andre Tyler,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-18808 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo SIMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6280.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Alfredo Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Alfredo Simpson appeals the district court’s orders denying his “Motion to Vacate Judgement[sic] Under Rule 12(b)(2)” and his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We *619have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Simpson,*No. CR-90-67-3 (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2001; Oct. 16, 2001). 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.*