alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ADMISSIBILITY OF ATTEMPT BY COUNSEL OF THE ACCUSED TO BRIBE WITNESSES.

Court of Appeals for Butler County.

#### Mefford v. State.

Decided, August 5, 1920.

*Criminal Latá*— Evidence *as to Attempt of Counsel of the Accused to Bribe "Witnesses Inadmissible, "When.*

In a criminal prosecution it is error to admit evidence of an attempt by the attorney for the accused to bribe witnesses or suppress evidence against the accused, where it is not proven that the accused was connected with such attempt.

*Edgar A. Belden*and *U. E. Bickley,*for plaintiff' in error.

*Isaac C. Baker,*Pros. Atty., for defendant in error.

Heard on error.

By the Court.

Harold Mefford was jointly indicted with several others for robbery in Butler county.

The evidence showed that two Italian workmen were enticed by a woman, one of the defendants, to a saloon late one night, and, after leaving1 it, they were set upon and robbed by several men. The Italians were unable to identify Mefford, and the direct evidence of his participation in the crime was furnished by those who had been his co-defendants. All of the other persons indicted pleaded guilty and Mefford alone stood trial. In the course of the introduction of the evidence on the part of the state the witnesses were allowed to testify that U. F. Bickley, who appeared as one of the attorneys for the defendant at the hearing, had said to the witness: “If you don’t come up and testify before the grand jury against Mefford, I’ll help you out”; “if you plead not guilty, they can’t prove it,” “you ain’t guilty until you are proved guilty.” Similar testimony was *544given by several witnesses in respect to the conduct of the attorney, all over the objection and exception of the defendant.

If the attorney had attempted corruptly to suppress evidence, his conduct would have constituted an offense under the criminal law of the state. Section 12866, G. C.

There was no testimony tending to connect Mefford with the alleged action on the part of his attorney. A client is not responsible ' for any illegal action taken by his attorney, which he did not advise, consent to, or participate in, and which was not justified by any authority he had given. 6 Corpus Juris, 661.

Attempts by persons other than-the accused to bribe witnesses, or otherwise to suppress or manufacture evidence, are evidence against the accused when, but only when, it is proven that lie was connected with such attempts. Acts and statements of third persons, not known or authorized by him are inadmissible. 16 Corpus Juris., 556.

In view of the failure to connect Mefford with the statements, it was error to admit the evidence. It was of such character that its admission could not fail to have prejudiced him. Attempts to suppress evidence indicate a consciousness of guilt, and if proved to have been made by defendant are highly probative of criminality.

In view of the entire record the court does not find the judg.ment to be manifestly against the weight of the evidence.'

For the error in admitting the testimony of the alleged statements of Bickley, the judgment will be reversed and a new trial ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       9,859,230
<SECURITIES>                                90,060,159
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,650,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,389,093
<PP&E>                                       5,060,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                 379,401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             269,237,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,473,253
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,829,005
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,475,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               269,237,753
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,678,124
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,891,164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               268,793
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             952,038
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,944,463
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,496,384
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,448,079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.52
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
22





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul O.
Richins, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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





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











/s/ Paul O.
Richins


Paul O.
Richins


Principal
Financial Officer


March 6,
2008




A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eddie MITCHELL

No. 80-K-2752.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 1980.

In re State of Louisiana, through the District Attorney, Leonard Knapp, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Calcasieu. No. 3383-80.

Denied on showing made.

MARCUS, J., concurs in the denial. *See, State v. Dyer,*388 So.2d 374 (La.1980).
Exhibit 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-34360,
333-86098, 333-89666, 333-113557 and 333-119266 and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-120316, 333-119271,
333-118090, 333-104685, 333-69116, 333-52512, 333-95673, 333-92173, 333-58183, 333-77321,
333-66151, 333-02889, 333-00779, 033-43591 and 333-14241) of Adaptec, Inc. of our report dated June 13, 2006, relating to the
financial statements, financial statement schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San
Jose, California
June 13, 2006

---



QuickLinks
40981.

#### SMITH v. THE STATE.

Decided November 17, 1964

Rehearing denied December 2, 1964.

*Walter B. Fincher, L. Paul Cobb. Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*William T. Boyd, Solicitor General, J. Robert Sparks, J. Walter LeCraw,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The evidence authorized the charge of the trial court as to the necessity of the testimony of an accomplice being corroborated.

The charge on “flight” was not authorized by the evidence. The facts as shown by the record were that the automobile was stolen on December 4, 1962, that it was immediately delivered to the defendant by the accomplice, that on January 9, 1963, it was sold by the defendant to Burnett & Tedder Motors, that in February, 1963, the automobile was sold by Burnett & Tedder Motors to Albert Gary, that on June 6, 1963, it was discovered that the automobile might have been stolen, that after checking the automobile on July 10, 1963, a telephone call was placed to the defendant by Mr. Burnett of Burnett & Tedder Motors, that Mr. McKibben, a special agent with the National Auto Theft Bureau, listened to such conversation on an extension ’phone, that on February 7, 1964, a true bill was returned by the grand jury charging the defendant with larceny of such auto*765mobile, that also on February 7, 1964, a policeman went to the defendant’s place of business but did not mention the indictment or warrant issued thereon. That later on February 7, 1964, the defendant went to Moultrie, Ga., and was arrested two days later near Sylvester, Ga. The defendant in his statement referred to the telephone conversation and to the police officer coming to his place of business “that day” (the day he went to Moultrie) but it is obvious from a reading of the entire record that the defendant was speaking of “that day” when the police officer came to his place of business and not “that day” when he received the telephone call some seven months previously.

While the charge on “flight” was correct as an abstract principle of law (see *Kalb v. State,*195 Ga. 544, 25 SE2d 24), evidence that the defendant went out of town a year after the date of the alleged crime, seven months after being questioned about such crime, and at a time when it was not shown that he knew of the indictment returned against him, is not sufficient to authorize such charge. The trial court erred in overruling such ground of the motion for new trial.

The usual general grounds of the motion for new trial will not be passed upon inasmuch as the evidence on another trial may not be the same.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Hall and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

      I, Keith Brackpool, herby certify that, to my
knowledge, that:

      1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Cadiz Inc. for the period ended ended September 30, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      2. the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Cadiz Inc.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Statement as of the date first written above.

Dated: November 14, 2005


                              /s/ Keith Brackpool
                              ----------------------------------
                              Keith Brackpool
                              Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3377

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to provide

for determining tort liability of holders of rights-of-way over Federal

lands under the ordinary rules of negligence and to clarify the exemption

from right-of-way rental fees for certain rural electric and telephone

facilities.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1996

Mr. COOLEY of Oregon (for himself and Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976 to provide for determining tort liability of holders of rights-of-way over Federal lands under the ordinary rules of negligence and to clarify the exemption

from right-of-way rental fees for certain rural electric

and telephone facilities.

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 ‘‘Rural Right-of-Way

5 Fairness Act’’.
2

•HR 3377 IH

1 SEC. 2. STANDARD FOR DETERMINING LIABILITY OF HOLD2 ERS OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 504(h)

4 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

5 (43 U.S.C. 1764(h)) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(2) Any regulation or stipulation imposing liability

7 for damage or injury shall be determined by ordinary rules

8 of negligence.’’.

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

10 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to damages or inju11 ries occurring after the date of enactment of this Act.

12 SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FROM RENTAL FEES FOR CERTAIN

13 RURAL ELECTRIC AND TELEPHONE FACILI14 TIES.

15 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 504(g) of the Federal

16 Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.

17 1764(g)) is amended by striking ‘‘financed pursuant to the

18 Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended,’’ in the

19 last sentence and inserting ‘‘eligible for financing pursu20 ant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended,

21 determined without regard to any application requirement

22 under that Act,’’.

23 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

24 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to rights-of-way

25 leases held on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
HomeAssisted Schools...Tallinn, Estonia: International School of Estonia: 2024 Special Needs Profile

# 									Tallinn, Estonia: International School of Estonia: 2024 Special Needs Profile							

Special Needs Profile

Office of Overseas Schools

February 23, 2024

## 								School Contact Information							

        -  Tel: +372-6664-380 | Overseas Schools Fact Sheet | Acting Regional Education Officer: Andrew Hoover 
        -  E-mail: office@ise.edu.ee | Website: www.ise.edu.ee| Special needs information can be found hereand here. 
        -  Additional details on special needs support at post found on the **School Summary Information Portal**(must have OKTA login to access).  For more information, contact A/OPR/OS (**overseasschools@state.gov** / +1-202-261-8200), MED/CFP Child and Family Program Team (**MEDCFP@state.gov**/ +1-202-663-1815), or the school directly. 

**Download the Special Needs Profile** (Tallinn- 2024 Special Needs Profile- Estonia) for this school to learn more about their capability to support students with exceptionalities.

 

**The International School of Estonia**(ISE) is a coeducational day school that offers an educational program for students ages three to 20 of all nationalities. ISE was founded in 1995. The 2022-2023school year comprises two semesters from August to June.

*This is intended to provide general information. Prospective users of the schools may wish to inquire further of A/OPR/OS or contact the school directly for more specific and up-to-the-minute information. Information and statistics are current as of December 2023 and provided by the school.*

NOTE: School situations can change quickly, particularly as schools face cutbacks to learning support programs due to the pandemic, unrest, and economic uncertainty. For the most current information, work with the REO and school. Information in this document was collected by the Department of State’s Office of Overseas Schools directly from the school in December 2023 and shows the availability of services rather than an assessment of the quality of the services. The profile is intended as a jumping off point for a conversation with the REO and school to understand the best fit for your child. Definitions may vary school to school.

Tags

EstoniaOffice of Overseas Schools

Back to Top
§ 441.466 Assessment of need. States must conduct an assessment of the participant's needs, strengths, and preferences in accordance with the following: ( a ) States may use one or more processes and techniques to obtain information about an individual, including health condition, personal goals and preferences for the provision of services, functional limitations, age, school, employment, household, and other factors that are relevant to the need for and authorization and provision of services.
( b ) Assessment information supports the determination that an individual requires PAS and also supports the development of the service plan and budget.
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Adelmo Niebla-Gonzalez

# 									Adelmo Niebla-Gonzalez							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

March 26, 2017

#### WANTED: ADELMO NIEBLA-GONZALEZ

**NAME:** Adelmo Niebla-Gonzalez**ALIASES:**Guillermo Niebla-Gonzalez, Guillermo Nieblas-Nava, “Memo,” “El Senor,” “G3”**DOB**: January 30, 1961**POB:**Tamazula, Durango, Mexico**NATIONALITY:** Mexican**CITIZENSHIP:**Mexico**HEIGHT:** 5’8”**WEIGHT:** 180 pounds**HAIR COLOR:** Brown**EYE COLOR**: Brown**SCARS, TATTOOS, OR MARKS:** Unknown

Adelmo Niebla-Gonzalez is the alleged leader of the Niebla-Gonzalez Transnational Criminal Organization, which is aligned with the Sinaloa Cartel. Niebla-Gonzalez is allegedly responsible for the illegal importation of marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine from Mexico for distribution in the United States since approximately 1995. Niebla-Gonzalez allegedly controls large areas of northern Sonora, Mexico, near the Arizona/Sonora border, and controls the Durango, Mexico area of the “golden triangle” region. Niebla-Gonzalez allegedly cultivates marijuana and produces heroin and methamphetamine in this area.

Niebla-Gonzalez is charged in a 2015 federal indictment from the United States District of Arizona for violations of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 848 (Continuing Criminal Enterprise), 963 (Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana a Controlled Substance, for Unlawful Importation), 846 (Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana, a Controlled Substance), and 841(a)(1) (Possession with Intent to Distribute Marijuana, a Controlled Substance and Aid and Abet), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956 (Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments)

The United States Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $5 MILLION** for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of **Adelmo Niebla-Gonzalez**.

If you have information and are located outside of the United States, please contact the nearest United States Embassy or Consulate. If in the United States, please contact the local Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in your city. Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingMexicoNarcoticsRewards for Justice

Back to Top
# C_2006079EN.01002201.xml

| 1.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/22

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4136 — Deutsche Post/Williams Lea)

(2006/C 79/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 March 2006, 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 English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 32006M4136. 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 32006M4136. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 433.140 FFP and repayment of Federal share. ( a ) FFP is not available in Medicaid payments if— ( 1 ) The agency failed to fulfill the requirements of §§ 433.138 and 433.139 with regard to establishing liability and seeking reimbursement from a third party;
( 2 ) The agency received reimbursement from a liable third party; or
( 3 ) A private insurer would have been obligated to pay for the service except that its insurance contract limits or excludes payments if the individual is eligible for Medicaid.
( b ) FFP is available at the 50 percent rate for the agency's expenditures in carrying out the requirements of this subpart.
( c ) If the State receives FFP in Medicaid payments for which it receives third party reimbursement, the State must pay the Federal government a portion of the reimbursement determined in accordance with the FMAP for the State. This payment may be reduced by the total amount needed to meet the incentive payment in § 433.153.
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 SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Hitchin,
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:





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.




/s/
      James HitchinJames
      Hitchin
                Chief
      Executive Officer
                Date:
      August 16, 2010