alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41249.

#### SIMMONS v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Nathaniel Simmons was indicted for assault with intent to murder by cutting and stabbing Willie Hall. On the trial before the judge without a jury the defendant was found guilty and now assigns error on the judgment overruling his motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only. The evidence adduced on the trial *554of the case included the positive identification by the victim, and the sole argument of the defendant is that the victim’s testimony was impeached and therefore the conviction was not authorized. There was evidence introduced tending to impeach the victim (a conflict as to a statement given a police officer on the night of the stabbing). *Held:*

Submitted April 6, 1965

Decided April 13, 1965.

*Edward J. Goodwin,*for plaintiff in error.

*Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor General, Andrew J. Ryan, III,*contra.

Where a trial judge hears a case without the intervention of a jury, the credibility of the witnesses is for his determination. *Boynton v. State,*11 Ga. App. 268 (75 SE 9); *Goggans v. State,*14 Ga. App. 822 (2) (82 SE 357); *Holbrook v. Rodgers,*105 Ga. App. 219, 221 (124 SE2d 443).

The evidence authorized the conviction and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Panned, JJ., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – October 26, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – October 26, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

October 25, 2022

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

**12:45 p.m.**Secretary Blinken attends President Biden’s bilateral meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog at the White House.**(MEDIA DETERMINED BY THE WHITE HOUSE)**

**5:45 p.m.** Secretary Blinken hosts and delivers remarks at a Diwali reception at the Department of State.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)***The Secretary’s remarks will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**and**www.youtube.com/statedept**.**Final access time for all media is 4:40 p.m. from the C Street Entrance.*

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

Deputy Secretary Sherman is on travel to Japan and Washington from October 24-27, 2022.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS UZRA ZEYA**

Under Secretary Zeya is on travel to the Dominican Republic from October 26-28, 2022.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS KAREN DONFRIED**

**9:15 a.m.** Assistant Secretary Donfried meets with Director of the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Stefan Mair at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**11:00 a.m.** Assistant Secretary Donfried attends the Russia Strategic Roundtable at the Pentagon in Virginia.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS MONICA P. MEDINA**

Assistant Secretary Medina is on travel to Australia from October 23-26, 2022.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**2:00 p.m.**Department Press Briefing with Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)***The Department Press Briefing will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**and**www.youtube.com/statedept**.*

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### Seaboard Freight Line, Inc. *v.*Castro Electric Company et al.

Maltbib, C. J., Brown, Jennings, Ells and Dickenson, Js.

Argued January 8

decided January 29, 1946.

*Louis Feinmark,*with whom, on the brief, was *Maxwell H. Goldstein,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Isadore Chaplowe,*with whom, on the brief, was *Albert W. Cretella,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover for property damage resulting from an automobile collision and has appealed from a judgment for the defendants. The only errors assigned are in the charge. The plaintiff made no objection to the charge at its conclusion as required by § 156 of the Practice Book, and we have repeatedly held that we will not, except in unusual situations, consider claimed errors in the charge unless such objection is made.

The plaintiff seeks to avoid the effect of the rule *573upon two grounds. The first is that the trial judge did not, as its counsel says is the custom with many trial judges, inquire at the conclusion of the charge whether there were objections to it. The rule imposes no obligation upon the judge to make any such inquiry. The responsibility is upon counsel, as in similar situations, notably rulings upon evidence, to make the objection if he deems the interests of his client require it. The other ground advanced by the plaintiff for avoiding the rule is that at the conclusion of the charge the trial judge retired from the bench too quickly to allow counsel time for objection. A reasonable opportunity should, of course, be given for making objections, but the record does not show that the court in this instance failed to give it. Even if the situation was such as the plaintiff claims, counsel should have gone to the judge in chambers and requested him to return to the bench, that objection might be made.

There is no error.
HomeNATO Recent Actions...NATO – Ottawa Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; North Macedonia, December 4, 2023

# 									NATO – Ottawa Agreement – Notification of Deposit of Instrument; North Macedonia, December 4, 2023							

Depositary Actions - Treaty Affairs

Office of Treaty Affairs

Download Attachment						 [107 KB]

Tags

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNorth Macedonia

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
# Eiropas Savienības L 378/2004

| | ISSN 1725-5112 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | L 378 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Tiesību akti | 47. sējums2004. gada 23. decembris |

ISSN 1725-5112

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

L 378

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Tiesību akti

47. sējums2004. gada 23. decembris

---

| Saturs | | II   Tiesību akti, kuru publicēšana nav obligāta | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Padome |
| | * | 2004/869/EK:Padomes 2004. gada 24. februāra Lēmums par to, ka Eiropas Kopienas vārdā noslēgts Starptautiskais Līgums par augu ģenētiskajiem resursiem pārtikai un lauksaimniecībai | 1 |
| | * | 2004/870/EK:Padomes 2004. gada 29. aprīļa Lēmums par sadarbības nolīguma noslēgšanu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Pakistānas Islāma Republiku | 2 |

Saturs

II   Tiesību akti, kuru publicēšana nav obligāta

Lappuse

Padome

*

2004/869/EK:Padomes 2004. gada 24. februāra Lēmums par to, ka Eiropas Kopienas vārdā noslēgts Starptautiskais Līgums par augu ģenētiskajiem resursiem pārtikai un lauksaimniecībai

1

*

2004/870/EK:Padomes 2004. gada 29. aprīļa Lēmums par sadarbības nolīguma noslēgšanu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Pakistānas Islāma Republiku

2

| LV | Tiesību akti, kuru virsraksti ir gaišajā drukā, attiecas uz kārtējiem jautājumiem lauksaimniecības jomā un parasti ir spēkā tikai ierobežotu laika posmu.
  Visu citu tiesību aktu virsraksti ir tumšajā drukā, un pirms tiem ir zvaigznīte. |
| --- | --- |

LV

Tiesību akti, kuru virsraksti ir gaišajā drukā, attiecas uz kārtējiem jautājumiem lauksaimniecības jomā un parasti ir spēkā tikai ierobežotu laika posmu.

Visu citu tiesību aktu virsraksti ir tumšajā drukā, un pirms tiem ir zvaigznīte.

---

II Tiesību akti, kuru publicēšana nav obligāta

Padome

| 23.12.2004 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | L 378/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

L 378/1

---

Padomes 2004. gada 24. februāra Lēmums par to, ka Eiropas Kopienas vārdā noslēgts Starptautiskais Līgums par augu ģenētiskajiem resursiem pārtikai un lauksaimniecībai

(2004/869/EK)

Šā akta teksts latviešu valodā tiks publicēts Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša īpašajā izdevumā, ietverot iestāžu un Eiropas Centrālās bankas aktus, kas pieņemti pirms 2004. gada 1. maija. Īpašā izdevuma sējumi būs pakāpeniski pieejami laikposmā no 1. maija līdz 2004. gada beigām.

---

| 23.12.2004 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | L 378/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2004

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

L 378/2

---

Padomes 2004. gada 29. aprīļa Lēmums par sadarbības nolīguma noslēgšanu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Pakistānas Islāma Republiku

(2004/870/EK)

Sadarbības nolīgums starp Eiropas Kopienu un Pakistānas Islāma Republiku par partnerību un attīstību

Šā akta teksts latviešu valodā tiks publicēts Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša īpašajā izdevumā, ietverot iestāžu un Eiropas Centrālās bankas aktus, kas pieņemti pirms 2004. gada 1. maija. Īpašā izdevuma sējumi būs pakāpeniski pieejami laikposmā no 1. maija līdz 2004. gada beigām.

---
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2136/2004

of 14 December 2004         

amending Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 of 29 April 2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (1), and in particular, Article 11(b) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 is hereby amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 May 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 December 2004.

For the Commission

Benita FERRERO-WALDNER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p.32. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1580/2004 (OJ L 289, 10.9.2004, p. 4).

----

ANNEX

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 is amended as follows:

----
#### GARDOS v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 5338.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 5, 1935.

*1014Samuel D. Berg, of Milwaukee, Wis., for appellant.

B. J. Husting, U. S. Atty., of Milwaukee, Wis., for the United States.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is now here ordered by the court that the motion of counsel for appellant for an extension of time for filing brief for appellant be, and the same is hereby, denied. It is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the motion of counsel for ap-pellee to dismiss this appeal be, and the same is hereby, granted, and that this appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

THE COAST
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for
the Quarter ended March 31, 2008

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of The Coast Distribution System, Inc (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which this
Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 14, 2008



/s/ JAMES MUSBACHJames MusbachPresident and Chief Executive OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
ACCEPTED

01-18-00027-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

5/25/2018 1:23 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/25/2018 1:23:41 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
#### Alfred W. Hannington, Appellant, *v.*A. W. Hannington Manufacturing Co. et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment rendered against the plaintiff and in favor of defendants, for costs in the Municipal Court, first district, borough of Manhattan.

*817James H. Rogers, for appellant.

Wm. B. Ellison, for respondents.

Freedman, P. J.

The plaintiff brings this action to recover the amount of two loans of $300 and $100, respectively, claimed by him to have been made to the A. W. Hannington Manufacturing Co., in July, 1897. He alleges, in his complaint, that, subsequent to the time of the loans, these defendants, Christman, Ehrlich *&*Co., succeeded to and acquired all the rights and interests of the said A. W. Hannington Manufacturing Co.

These defendants, by their answer, deny the making of the loans and allege as a counterclaim that the plaintiff was at the time .the loans are alleged to have been made, indebted to the A. W-. Hannington Manufacturing Co., in a sum largely in excess of the amount of said loans. The testimony is conflicting. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as to the loan of $300 being squarely contradicted by two witnesses for the defendants ' who gave testimony to the effect that the loan was made to the defendant Christman, personally, and upon his credit alone. As to the second loan the defendants introduced testimony tending to show that when the plaintiff made that loan, he requested that the amount be placed to his credit with the A. W. Hannington Manufacturing Co., upon an indebtedness then existing against him in favor of said company, which was done. Testimony was also given by the defendants, from which the court might reasonably find that at the time of said loan, the plaintiff was actually owing said company more than the amount of that loan.

This testimony was contradicted by the plaintiff.

The issues thus raised were questions of fact, to be determined by the court, and were decided in favor of the defendants. The attention of this court has not been called upon this appeal to any exceptions taken by the plaintiff, and it does not appear that injustice has been done or that the judgment is against the weight of evidence.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
exv10w12











Exhibit 10.12




SECOND AMENDMENT TO GASCO ENERGY, INC. EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     WHEREAS,                        
                 
(“Executive”) and Gasco Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) have
heretofore entered into an employment agreement, effective as of January 2, 2003, as amended by an
amendment thereto effective as of January 1, 2009 (together, the “Agreement”), pertaining to the
terms and conditions of Executive’s employment by the Company; and



     WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to amend the Agreement by entering into this
Second Amendment to Gasco Energy, Inc. Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”);



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement shall be and is hereby amended, effective as of January 22,
2009:



     1. The last sentence of Section 5.5.4 shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall
be substituted therefore:




“The additional compensation payable to the Executive pursuant to a) or b), as
applicable, and c) of this Section 5.5.4 shall only become payable if Executive’s
employment is terminated with the Company no later than the last day of the calendar
year in which the Change of Control occurred and shall be paid to Executive at the
time selected by the Company but in no event later than the fifteenth day of the
third month immediately following the calendar year in which the Change of Control
occurred.”




2. As amended hereby, the Agreement is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.



[Signature Page Follows]














 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed this 22nd day
of January, 2009



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	THE COMPANY:	 	 	 	EXECUTIVE:	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	GASCO ENERGY, INC.	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	 	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 





Signature Page to 

Second Amendment To

Gasco energy, inc. employment Agreement
# C_2006011EN.01001101.xml

| 17.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3935 — Jefferson Smurfit/Kappa)

(2006/C 11/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 November 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(2) 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 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 32005M3935. 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 32005M3935. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
****Search in:****Joint Travel Regulation JTR, Volume 2****Search For:****Options:** Show only records with hits**
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IDS Life Insurance
Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Barbara H.
Fraser, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 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/  Barbara H. Fraser
    --------------------------
Name:    Barbara H. Fraser
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
Date:    May 15, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TONY MCDONOUGH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 288 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Kevin J.Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2020-A (the“Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 27, 2022 

 

By:
 
/s/ Kevin J.Cullum

Kevin J. Cullum

President and Chief Executive Officer of

Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC

(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)

 

 
9 

**
#### § 426.416 Role of Medicare Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) and State agencies in the LCD review.

Medicare MCOs and Medicaid State agencies have no role in the LCD review process. However, once the ALJ has issued its decision, the decision is made available to all Medicare MCOs and State agencies.
PRIVACY INFORMATION-NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Date: 20160126 Revision:1.0

Page 1 of 1

PRIVACY INFORMATION - NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Amendment for Docket# FAA-2015-0023

Amendment Request

Empire Unmanned requests an amendment to our Section 333 Exemption No. 11339. We would 

like to add the following models to our exemption: Xcraft Xplusone, Idetec AgWing and Stardust, DeltaFW70, Aeromao Aeromapper, PrecisionHawk Lancaster, Agribotix Hornet and Trimble UX5. With the 

changing capabilities of the UAS it is important to use the most capable and increasingly safer models 

available. The additions of these models to the existing exemption will increase the overall safety and 

efficiency of all of our operations. All of these models run similar flight controls and have very similar 

safety features to include return to home point. It is in the public’s best interest to allow us to utilize these 

cutting edge UAS. These new UAS will increase overall operational capabilities and decrease any chance 

for a maintenance related safety issue. 

UAS operations in aerial surveying, aerial photography, agriculture operations, wildlife and 

forestry management, wild land firefighting support, aerial inspection and mapping operations with little 

to no negative impact on our fragile environment. UAS’s will reduce noise, fuel vapor, fuel burn, fuel 

spills and many of the other dangerous side effects of the larger manned aircraft.