alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 931 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. McGIN

Cite as 303 Neb. 931

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Danny J. McGinn, ap

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed August 23, 2019. No. S-18-744.

supplemental opin

Appeal from the District Court for Holt County, Mark D

Kozisek, Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for

Holt County, Kale B. Burdick, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overru

Forrest F. Peetz, of Peetz Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss, 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller‐Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg,

Per Curiam

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. 

McGinn.

1

 We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion 

as follows:

In the analysis section, we withdraw the last paragraph2 and 

substitute the following:

1 State v. McGinn, ante p. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019).

2 Id. at 234, 928 N.W.2d at 398.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

11/08/2019 01:06 AM CST
- 932 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

303 Nebraska Report

STATE v. McGIN

Cite as 303 Neb. 931

In this matter, because we consider all evidence admitted by the trial court, erroneously or not, we consider the 

breath test in our double jeopardy analysis. Considering 

the breath test, the evidence was sufficient to sustain 

a guilty verdict for a violation of § 60-6,196(1)(c) as 

charged. As such, double jeopardy does not forbid a 

remand for a new trial. Therefore, in consideration of 

all of the above, we reverse the district court’s decision 

affirming the county court’s conviction and remand the 

cause to the district court with directions to remand the 

matter to the county court for a new trial.

In the sole paragraph of the conclusion section, we withdraw 

the last sentence3 and substitute the following: “Accordingly, 

we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county 

court’s conviction, but determine double jeopardy does not 

require dismissal of this action.”

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modifi

 Motion for rehearing overr

3 Id.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2276 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 2, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 2276 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER E. ESCKELSON POST 

2 OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 203 North Main Street in Vas5 sar, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Cor6 poral Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Corporal Christopher 

11 E. Esckelson Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 1, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### Benjamin Bernhard, Appellant, *v.*David Cohen, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court, reversing an order of .the Special Term of the City Court, denying a motion to vacate, a warrant of attachment issued against the property of the'defendant.

Platzek, Stroock *&*Herzog, for appellant.

Nathán, Leventritt *&*Pefham (Harold Nathan of counsel), for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

The allegations contained in the affidavit upon which the attachment in this case was granted are equally as consistent with an honest intent on the part of-the defendant .as a. dishonest one.- Mere conjecture will not sustain an attachment. Proofs should be of such a character as to fairly justify no other conclusion than a dishonest purpose. The order of the General Term should be affirmed.

MacLeait, J., concurs; Levehtbitt, J., taking no part.

Order of the General Term, affirmed, with costs to respondent.
Dir ID: FAA-2015-6550 Docket No: 2016-NM-162-AD
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 10855-000]

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 380, Commission staff have prepared an environmental assessment (EA) regarding Upper Peninsula Power Company's request to replace the penstock at the McClure development of the Dead River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 10855) located on the Dead River in Marquette County, Michigan.

The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed replacement of the McClure Penstock and concludes that the proposed penstock replacement, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

                    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's Internet Web site (                    *http://www.ferc.gov*) using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (202) 502-6088, or on the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*                     or toll-free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY contact (202) 502-8659.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-22996 Filed 9-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41780 Summary Calendar
ISMAEL RODRIGUEZ, also known as Officer Smiley Petitioner-Appellant

v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CV-5
Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ismael Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 1187177, is serving a 70-year prison sentence for murder. He appeals the district court’s denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This court granted a certificate of appealability (COA) after Rodriguez raised issues as to the retroactivity of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and whether his Crawford claim is procedurally barred. The United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 16, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-41780

2 State has since conceded that Craw ford’s retroactivity is not at issue because Rodriguez’s conviction was not final when Crawford was decided. Rodriguez contends that the admission of his accomplices’ guilty plea documents violated his Confrontation Clause rights as recognized by Crawford because those pleas were admissions not only against the accomplices’ penal interest but against his own. This Crawford claim was rejected by the state appellate court as procedurally barred because Rodriguez did not make a Confrontation Clause or hearsay objection at trial. Our review of this claim is therefore barred by an independent and adequate state rule of procedural default. See Parr v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2974 (2007). Rodriguez’s argument that, prior to Crawford, he could not have raised a non-futile objection to his accomplices’ evidence is meritless. Such objections
were recognized long before Crawford

. See Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134 (1999); Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599 (1994); Leev. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 541, 543 (1986); seealso Bunton v. State , 136 S.W.3d 355, 369 (Tex. Ct. App. 2004); Cofield v. State, 891 S.W.2d 952, 955 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). R odriguez also contends that the State’s closing rebuttal argument improperly linked the accomplices’ pleas to Rodriguez’s guilt. Rodriguez did not raise the issue of an i mproper closing argument in his COA application or anywhere else prior to the instant appeal. Because our review is limited to claims on which a COA was granted, we do not consider this claim. See Larry v. Dretke

, 361 F.3d 890, 896 (5th Cir. 2004). Rodriguez has shown no basis for reliefunder § 2254. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 1.896 Publicizing vacancies. When applicants from outside the Federal service are desired, part-time vacancies may be publicized through various recruiting means, such as: ( a ) Federal Job Information Centers.
( b ) State Employment offices.
( c ) VA Recruiting Bulletins.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3402)
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  August 12, 2004

/s/ Michael L. DeMarco
------------------------
Michael L. DeMarco,
Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. James J. BROWN v. Hon. Bernard J. BAGERT, Sr., Criminal District Court.

No. 63085.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: James J. Brown applying for remedial writs. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
§ 50.606 Remedies. ( a ) If the failure of an Investigator to comply with an Institution's financial conflicts of interest policy or a financial conflict of interest management plan appears to have biased the design, conduct, or reporting of the PHS-funded research, the Institution shall promptly notify the PHS Awarding Component of the corrective action taken or to be taken. The PHS Awarding Component will consider the situation and, as necessary, take appropriate action, or refer the matter to the Institution for further action, which may include directions to the Institution on how to maintain appropriate objectivity in the PHS-funded research project. PHS may, for example, require Institutions employing such an Investigator to enforce any applicable corrective actions prior to a PHS award or when the transfer of a PHS grant(s) involves such an Investigator.
( b ) The PHS Awarding Component and/or HHS may inquire at any time before, during, or after award into any Investigator disclosure of financial interests and the Institution's review (including any retrospective review) of, and response to, such disclosure, regardless of whether the disclosure resulted in the Institution's determination of a financial conflict of interest. An Institution is required to submit, or permit on site review of, all records pertinent to compliance with this subpart. To the extent permitted by law, HHS will maintain the confidentiality of all records of financial interests. On the basis of its review of records or other information that may be available, the PHS Awarding Component may decide that a particular financial conflict of interest will bias the objectivity of the PHS-funded research to such an extent that further corrective action is needed or that the Institution has not managed the financial conflict of interest in accordance with this subpart. The PHS Awarding Component may determine that imposition of specific award conditions under 45 CFR 75.207, or suspension of funding or other enforcement action under 45 CFR 75.371, is necessary until the matter is resolved.
( c ) In any case in which the HHS determines that a PHS-funded project of clinical research whose purpose is to evaluate the safety or effectiveness of a drug, medical device, or treatment has been designed, conducted, or reported by an Investigator with a financial conflict of interest that was not managed or reported by the Institution as required by this subpart, the Institution shall require the Investigator involved to disclose the financial conflict of interest in each public presentation of the results of the research and to request an addendum to previously published presentations .
[76 FR 53283, August 25, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 3006, Jan. 20, 2016]
#### HAMBURG-AMERICAN LINE TERMINAL & NAVIGATION COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

(No. C-314.

Decided March 17, 1924)

*On Defendant's Demurrer*

*Jurisdiction.*— See *Dentsch-Australische, etc.*v. *United States, ante,*p. 450.

*The Reporter's*statement of tlie case:

The defendant’s demurrer in the above-entitled case was sustained and the petition dismissed, with the following

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The court holds it has not jurisdiction of this case. Its reasons are stated at length in its opinion in *Deutsch-Australische, etc., case,*No. C-576, decided this day, ante, p. 450.

The Congress having provided for the taking of title to the property and the making of compensation to be determined by the President (40 Stat. 459 and 1914), it must be presumed (1) to have intended that all compensation to which plaintiff ivas entitled be included in the President’s award, or (2) to have meant that no compensation was authorized for the prior use of the property.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Staff Sergeant JEREMY M. BRAINARD

United States Air Force

ACM S32332

6 April 2016

Sentence adjudged 24 June 2015 by SPCM convened at McConnell Air 

Force Base, Kansas. Military Judge: Vance H. Spath (sitting alone).

Approved Sentence: Bad-conduct discharge, confinement for 90 days, and 

reduction to E-1.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Lieutenant Colonel Joy L. Primoli.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire.

Before

ALLRED, TELLER, and ZIMMERMAN

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is issued as an unpublished opinion and, as such, does not serve as precedent 

under Rule of Practice and Procedure 18.4.

PER CURIAM:

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error 

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occurred. Article 66(c), 

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000). 

Accordingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

LEAH M. CALAHAN

Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard G. Hickson IV, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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.





/s/ Richard G. Hickson IV


Richard G. Hickson IV (*)


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


May 6, 2011








*
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Parkway Properties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – March 22, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – March 22, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

March 21, 2021

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

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Brussels, Belgium from March 22-25, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

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

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

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS DAVID HALE**

**1:00 p.m.**Under Secretary Hale delivers remarks at the National Defense University, in Washington, D.C.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS PHILIP T. REEKER**

Acting Assistant Secretary Reeker accompanies Secretary Blinken on travel to Brussels, Belgium from March 22-25, 2021.  Please click here for more information.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**2:00 p.m.**Principal Deputy Spokesperson Jalina Porter holds a telephonic press briefing.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 26, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 26, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0036. RALPH WILKES et al. v. SUNTRUST BANK et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2015CV260577
Exhibit 10.5 NSE 3Q 10-Q Master Lease Agreement NSI and Aspen Country






AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 



MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT 



[Aspen Country, LLC] 



        THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MASTER LEASE AGREEMENT (hereinafter the “Amendment”),
effective as of the 1st day of July, 2003, by and between ASPEN COUNTRY, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company, whose address is 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601,
ATTN: Brooke Roney (hereinafter “Landlord”) and NU SKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Utah corporation, whose address is 75 West Center Street, Provo, Utah 84601 (hereinafter
“Tenant”). 



R E C I T A L S: 



         A.       
          Tenant has the right to renew certain leases to the premises identified on
          Schedule A to this Amendment (the “Premises”). 



         B.       
          Tenant desires to renew such leases of the Premises from Landlord. 



         C.       
          The parties desire to amend the Master Lease Agreement with respect to the
          Premises to reflect the renewal terms of the lease. 



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of
the rents, covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, Landlord and Tenant mutually
agree to the amended terms and conditions for the Premises set forth on Schedule A
attached hereto. 






SCHEDULE A 



to 



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
MASTER LEASE 



[Aspen Country, LLC] 



     



ANNEX “A” 



     1.    
          Commencement Date: July 1, 2003 



     2.    
          Premises: All of Annex A except for 7,500 sq. ft. which is not being
          leased by Tenant. 



     3.    
          Expiration Date: June 30, 2008 



     4.    
          Term: Five (5) years. 



     5.    
          Renewal Terms: None 



     6.    
          Monthly Rent: 








	MONTHS
	MONTHLY RENT

	  1-12	 	$     5,343	.75
	13-24	 	5,477	.34
	25-36	 	5,614	.28
	37-48	 	5,754	.63
	49-60	 	5,898	.50







     7.    
          Permitted Use: General warehouse storage, fleet maintenance and related
          uses. 



     8.    
          Utilities: In the event utilities for the space not being leased by
          Tenant cannot be separately metered, Landlord shall reimburse Tenant a portion
          of such shared utility costs in a manner as mutually agreed upon. 



     9.    
          Taxes/Repairs: Landlord shall reimburse Tenant pro rata for property
          taxes based on square footage if retained by Landlord (7500/30000). Landlord
          shall be responsible for paying for any and all repairs to the portion of the
          Premises retained by Landlord. 





LANDLORD
AND TENANT have executed this Amendment to the Lease effective as of the day and year
first above written. 



LANDLORD: 



ASPEN
COUNTRY, LLC

by
its Manager:



By:  /s/ Brooke B. Roney

Brooke B. Roney

Manager







TENANT 



NU SKIN INTERNATIONAL,
INC.


By /s/ D. Matthew Dorny

D. Matthew Dorny

Vice President and General Counsel
This Amendment dated October 27, 2003 to that certain Licensing
Agreement entered into the 6th day of January, 2003, ("License
Agreement") by and between (i)Exerciting, LLC., ("Exerciting"), a
limited liability corporation with a principal place of business at
2003-H Lake Park Drive, Smyrna, GA  30080 and (ii) Advanced Sports
Technologies, Inc., ("Company"), a Florida corporation with its
principal place of business at 9700 Via Emilie, Boca Raton, FL  33428
who, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

     WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge that Paragraph 5.2 inaccurately
referred to the ending date of the Company's fiscal quarter as being
December 31, 2003; and

     WHEREAS, the parties wish to correct such inaccurate reference;

     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and other valuable consideration, the
receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:

Paragraph 5.2 of the License Agreement is hereby amended and restated as
follows:

5.2	Minimum Royalty Payment.  Beginning with the fiscal
quarter of the Company's ending January 31, 2004 and
each quarter thereafter the quarterly minimum Royalty
payable to Exerciting under Section 5.1 above will be
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) and the Company
agrees that such Minimum Royalty will be paid within
forty-five (45) days of the last day of each quarter.
Failure by the Company to make the Minimum Royalty
Payment shall be deemed a material breach of this
agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Agreement on the dates indicated below.

Exerciting LLC                       Advanced Sports Technologies, Inc.


By: /s./ Brad Olschansky              By: /s/ Curtis Olschansky
   ----------------------                -----------------------
Title: President	              Title: President

Date: October 27, 2003                Date: October 27, 2003


<PAGE>