alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisana v. John F. CHAMBERS.

No. 64307.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 13, 1979.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

A. J. Boudreaux, Indigent Defender Board, Metairie, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction for forcible rape and sentence of forty years at hard labor on the basis of one assignment of error.1 We have reviewed the assignment of error and found it to be without merit.

Defendant has filed a *pro se*brief indicating some dissatisfaction with his appellate representation. Such allegations are more properly raised by an application to the district court for a writ of habeas corpus.

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1

. Two assignments of error filed in the court below but not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned.
# C_2005203EN.01000201.xml

| 19.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3870 — Carlyle/Otor)

(2005/C 203/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 August 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3870. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3870. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
40537.

#### WOODALL et al. v. LEACHMAN et al.

Hall, Judge.

This was an in personam action by lessors of a building for damages to the realty and loss of rentals allegedly caused by wrongful acts of the defendant, who was appointed trustee in bankruptcy of the lessee when the lessee was in default for rentals past due under the lease, and who allegedly beyond her duties as trustee and without right, severed attached light fixtures from the realty and caused them to be sold as an asset of the bankrupt estate, in violation of the terms of the bankrupt’s lease agreement. The plaintiffs assign error on the judgment of the trial court sustaining demurrers to the petition on two grounds, both of which relate to the jurisdiction of the trial court. The grounds upon which the demurrers were sustained were, first, that the petition shows that the defendant is not individually liable but shows that her acts complained of *“*[were] done by her in her representative capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy, acting pursuant to a valid order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia”; and, second, that any claims of the plaintiffs should be adjudicated in the court of bankruptcy. *Held:*

The above quoted facts stated in the first ground of the defendant’s demurrers do not appear on the face of the petition. Being a speaking demurrer, this ground should have been overruled. *Interstate Bond Co. v. Cullars,*189 Ga. 283 (2) (5 SE2d 756); *Teasley v. Jones,*215 Ga. 135 (2) (109 SE2d 514).

*87Decided January 30, 1964.

*Gibert, Walling & Hubert, Richard N. Hubert,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Ben T. Beasley, Jr.,*contra.

This is an in personam action for damages for wrongful acts allegedly beyond the defendant’s duties as trustee in bankruptcy. The plaintiffs do not seek to interfere with property in the custody of the bankruptcy court. The courts have held that such actions in State courts do not interfere with the bankruptcy court’s administration of the bankrupt estate, and that the personal liability of a trustee is subject to adjudication by State courts. Berman v. Smith, 171 Fed. 735 (N.D. Ga. 1909); In re French, 18 F. 2d 792 (W.D. Mich. 1927); In re Interocean Transportation Co., 232 F. 408 (3) (S. D. N.Y. 1916); In re 4145 Broadway Hotel Co., 124 F. 2d 891 (7th Cir. 1941); Collier on Bankruptcy, Vol. 1 (14th Ed.) 305, § 2. 61 [2]; 8A CJS 677, § 356; accord *Smith v. Berman,*8 Ga. App. 262 (68 SE 1014 (1910)).

The trial court erred in sustaining the defendant’s demurrers.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darnell HODGES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10071.

D.C. No. CR-98-00169-JBR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 2001 *.

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

*498Before ALARCÓN, KOZINSKI and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

1. Gomez and Santiago were “unavailable” to testify because the government made good faith efforts to obtain their presence at trial. *See Ohio v. Roberts,*448 U.S. 56, 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); *Windham v. Merkle,*163 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir.1998). The government visited their last known addresses and interviewed neighbors; it ran utilities checks and driver’s license checks; and it contacted the INS, who had no records of either. Because Gomez and Santiago had cooperated with the police throughout the case, the government reasonably did not anticipate that it would be unable to locate them at the time of trial.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding Hodges’s involvement in the armed robbery. “[Ejvidence of other criminal activity may be used for the purpose of providing the context in which the charged crime occurred.” *United States v. Collins,*90 F.3d 1420, 1428 (9th Cir.1996).

3. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting Hodges’s prior convictions for attempted robbery and robbery with use of a deadly weapon under Fed.R.Evid. 609(a)(1). The court balanced the relevant considerations and reasonably found that the probative value of his prior convictions outweighed their prejudicial value. *See United States v. Alexander,*48 F.3d 1477, 1488-89 (9th Cir.1995).

4. Finally, the district court properly sentenced Hodges as an armed career criminal because he has at least three pri- or convictions for a “violent felony.”1
      *See*18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Hodges concedes both that attempted robbery is a violent felony and that his conviction for two counts of armed robbery counts twice. *See United*
      *499
      *States v. Antonie,*953 F.2d 496, 499 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

. His conviction for attempted larceny from the person also qualifies as a violent felony. *See United States v. Wofford,*122 F.3d 787, 793-94 (9th Cir. 1997); *see also United States*v. *Riley,*183 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th Cir.1999) (‘‘[W]e have generally found attempts to commit crimes of violence, enumerated or not, to be themselves crimes of violence.”).
EXHIBIT
      32.1













CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






18
U.S.C. §1350,






AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




















In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BayHill Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
K. Bench, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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 results of operations of the
      Company.













Dated:
April 20,
2009                                                /s/  Robert K.
Bench


Robert
K. Bench


Chief
Executive Officer











This
certification accompanies the 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 the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2005171EN.01002702.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/27

---

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Dirk Grijseels and Ana Lopez García against the European Economic and Social Committee

(Case T-162/05)

(2005/C 171/45)

Language of the case: French

Anaction against the European Economic and Social Committee was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 April 2005 by Dirk Grijseels, residing in Ternat (Belgium), and Ana Lopez García, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decisions to appoint the applicants as officials of the European Communities in that they fix their grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions to appoint the applicants as officials of the European Communities in that they fix their grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same as those in Cases T-130/05 and T-160/05 and similar to those in Case T-58/05.

---
No. 99-8743.

#### Flanagan *v.*Arnaiz et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeFrance

# France

357 items

        -    TIAS  		France (13010) – Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters	  December 1, 2001 
        -    TIAS  		France (01-205) – Agreement Concerning Payments for Certain Losses During World War II	  February 5, 2001 
        -    TIAS  		France (00-918) – Agreement for Cooperation in Advanced Nuclear Reactor Science and Technology	  September 18, 2000 
        -    TIAS  		France (12965) – Air Transport Agreement	  June 18, 1998 
        -    TIAS  		France (12823) – Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation in the Jason Program	  December 20, 1996 
        -    		Bobby  Romero	  March 1, 1978 
        -    DS Memorial  		Bobby Romero	  March 1, 1978 

previous page1…343536

Back to Top
HomeDiplomatic Security Service Memorial...Ronald David  Hyatt, Jr.

# 				 Ronald David  Hyatt, Jr.			

				Third-Party Contractor			

Deceased				September 7, 2005			

**Private collection image**Back to DSS Memorial

Tags

Diplomatic Security Service MemorialIraq

Back to Top
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          61,869
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,493
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,674
<PP&E>                                       4,195,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                 288,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,281,984
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,000
<COMMON>                                     1,788,567
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,700)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,281,984
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               359,486
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 87,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             87,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,303
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,465
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.80
        

</TABLE>
No. 99-8737.

#### Benson *v.*Robinson, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Louis MIRAMBELL.

No. 67772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 23, 1980.

In re Louis Mirambell, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. *796Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court. No. 77-1099.

Denied.
# Haiti

223 items

        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 1, 2024	  Matthew MillerFebruary 1, 2024 
        -    Department of Justice Release  		“King” of Violent Haitian Gang Pleads Guilty to Gun Smuggling and Money Laundering After Government’s Case	  January 31, 2024 
        -    Press Statement  		United States Reiterates Support for Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti	  Matthew MillerJanuary 27, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on Multinational Security Support Mission Pre-Planning Conference	  December 22, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Leveraging Tools to Promote Accountability and Counter Global Corruption	  December 11, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Promoting Accountability in Support of the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights	  Antony J. BlinkenDecember 8, 2023 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Promoting Accountability in Support of the 75th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights	  December 8, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		U.S. Department of State Announces Increased Reward Offer for Information Leading to the Arrest and/or Conviction of Haitian Gang Leader	  Matthew MillerNovember 15, 2023 
        -    DSS Releases  		Haitian Gang Leader Charged with Hostage Taking Offenses that Resulted in the Death of a U.S. Citizen in Haiti in October 2022	  October 24, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		UN Security Council Resolution on Haiti	  Matthew MillerOctober 20, 2023 

previous page1…34567…23next page

Back to Top
693 A.2d 582

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. Russell COX, Petitioner.

No. 0010 Capital Appeal Docket.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 21, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 21st day of April, 1997, upon consideration of petitioner’s emergency motion for a stay of execution *34pending the resolution of his petition for a writ of certiorari, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application is GRANTED and his execution will be stayed pending action by the United States Supreme Court on his petition for writ of certiorari from this Court’s ruling in *Commonwealth v. Cox,*546 Pa. 515, 686 A.2d 1279 (1996).
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Robert Y. Lee, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Hydromer, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on
Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Hydromer, Inc.

Date: September 16, 2003             By: /s/ ROBERT Y. LEE
                                         -----------------
                                         Robert Y. Lee
                                         Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
§ 33.130 Waiver amendment. ( a ) *Amendment to an approved section 1332 waiver.* A State may request an amendment to an approved section 1332 waiver from the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. A section 1332 waiver amendment is considered a change to an approved section 1332 waiver plan that is not otherwise allowable under the terms and conditions of an approved waiver, a change that could impact any of the section 1332 statutory guardrails or a change to the program design for an approved waiver. A State is not authorized to implement any aspect of the proposed amendment without prior approval by the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
( b ) [Reserved]
[86 FR 53502, Sept. 27, 2021]
HomeUnder Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights...Under Secretary for Civilian Security Democracy and Human Rights  Releases

# Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights Releases

178 items

        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks to Commemorate the Tenth Anniversary of the Genocide at the Lalish Yezidi Temple	  Uzra ZeyaMay 10, 2024Lalish, Iraq 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Travel to Jordan and Iraq	  May 8, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		United States – Brazil Bilateral Migration Dialogue	  April 26, 2024 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Outcomes of the 55th Session of the UN Human Rights Council	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Travel to Georgia and Louisiana	  April 5, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks at an Iftar Dinner, Hosted by U.S. Embassy Jakarta	  Uzra ZeyaMarch 21, 2024Jakarta, Indonesia 
        -    Remarks  		Remarks for the Summit for Democracy Day 2 Civil Society and Youth Opening Ceremony	  Uzra ZeyaMarch 19, 2024Summit for Democracy Day 2 Civil Society and Youth Opening CeremonySeoul, Republic of Korea 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Remarks at the Summit for Democracy Day 2 Anti-Corruption Cohorts Event	  Uzra ZeyaMarch 19, 2024Seoul, Republic of Korea 
        -    Remarks  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Introductory Remarks at the Summit for Democracy Panel on “Upholding Information Integrity Online to Reinforce Democracy and Human Rights” 	  Uzra ZeyaMarch 19, 2024Seoul, Republic of Korea 
        -    Media Note  		Under Secretary Zeya’s Travel to the Republic of Korea and Indonesia	  March 15, 2024 

123…18next page

Back to Top
# C_2005171EN.01002401.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/24

---

Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-151/05)

(2005/C 171/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought on 14 April 2005 by the Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders (Netherlands Association of pig breeders), established in Lunteren (Netherlands); Marius Schep, residing in Lopik (Netherlands) and the Nederlandse Bond van Handelaren in Vee (Netherlands association of livestock dealers), established in the Hague (Netherlands), represented by Johannes Kneppelhout and Monique Charlotte van der Kaden.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek annulment of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3605 — SOVION/HMG).

The applicants submit that the Commission has infringed Articles 2, 6 and 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (the EC Merger Regulation). In the applicants' view, the Commission unlawfully decided that the proposed concentration gave rise to no problems for competition on the market for the purchase of live pigs and sows for slaughter and that no dominant position arose on the relevant market. In that connection the applicants claim that in certain recitals to the contested decision the Commission applied a distorted definition of the relevant product market by including the market for sows in the market for pigs. In the applicants' view the Commission defined the geographical market incorrectly.

1

The applicants also claim an infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and of due care. According to the applicants the Commission gave the applicants insufficient opportunity to clarify their views and disregarded the information supplied by them.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1.

1

---
# Mongolia

88 items

        -    Report  		Mongolia	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Mongolia	  April 20, 2018 
        -    Report  		Mongolia	  August 15, 2017 
        -    Report  		Mongolia	  June 29, 2017 
        -    Report  		Mongolia	  June 27, 2017 
        -    Report  		Mongolia	  March 3, 2017 
        -    TIAS  		Mongolia (12-112) – Memorandum of Understanding for Defense	  January 12, 2012 
        -    TIAS  		Mongolia (08-917.1) – Millennium Challenge Compact	  September 17, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Mongolia (08-220) – Agreement Concerning Cooperation to Suppress the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, their Delivery Systems, and Related Materials by Sea	  February 20, 2008 
        -    TIAS  		Mongolia (07-405) – Consular Convention	  April 5, 2007 

previous page1…6789next page

Back to Top