alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Haydon *v.*The State.

Assault and Battery.

(Decided August 1, 1916.

72 South. 586.)

1. Assault and Battery; Parent and Child; Elements. — A parent is not criminally liable for inflicting excessive punishment upon his child, unless the intent is malicious, or the punishment cruel, or resulted in permanent injury.

2. Same; Evidence. — The fact that a father whipped his fourteen year old stepdaughter with a switch is not sufficient to sustain a conviction for an assault.

*62Appeal from Houston Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

Ben Haydon was convicted of an assault and battery, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Lee & Tompkins, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and Harwell G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J.—

(1) A parent is not criminally liable in all cases merely because the punishment inflicted on his child is immoderate or excessive, and in cases where permanent injury to the child is not shown, it is incumbent on the prosecution to show that the chastisemnet was the result of malice or wicked motive. In the absence of malice or wicked motive, the parent, as to matters of discipline, “exercises pro hac vice judicial functions,” with the limitation that the punishment must not be cruel and permanent injury must not be *inflicted.*— Dean *v.*State, 89 Ala. 46, 8 South. *38; Boyd v. State,*88 Ala. 169, 7 South. 268, 16 Am. St. Rep. 31.

(2) The most that the evidence on the part of the state tends to show is that the licks were immoderate, but there is no pretense that the girl was permanently injured, or that the chastisement was cruel. Her testimony was: “I am 14 years of age. I know Bob Haydon. He is my stepfather. I lived with him in January of this year, and one morning the first part of January, about 10 o’clock, in the field back of the house he whipped me with a persimmon switch.”

There is nothing in the evidence showing, or tending to show, how the girl was dressed, or what effect, if any, the whipping had on her person, and there is nothing in the character of the switch used to justify an inference of malice or wicked motive. The opinion here prevails that the evidence fails to make a case against the defendant, and the affirmative charge requested by him should have been given.

Reversed and remanded.
#### § 1650.106 Right to inspect and copy records related to the debt.

An employee who desires to inspect or copy Commission records related to the debt must send a request to the official designated in the Notice of Debt. In response, the Commission will notify the employee of the location and time when the employee may inspect and copy the records or send copies of such records to the employee.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7841

ROBERT T. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN COLLINS; CATHY DIALS, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees, and LUMBERTON MEDICAL STAFF; OTHER UNKNOWN PARTIE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-433-5-BO) Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert T. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert T. Carter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2000). Because Carter did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court’s dismissal of the action, without prejudice, was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1919.35 Order of tests.

When both unit and loose gear proof load tests are required, the loose gear test may be carried out after completion of the unit test.
§ 36.2 Requirements as of date of application. ( a ) Section 21.17 of this chapter notwithstanding, each person who applies for a type certificate for an aircraft covered by this part, must show that the aircraft meets the applicable requirements of this part that are effective on the date of application for that type certificate. When the time interval between the date of application for the type certificate and the issuance of the type certificate exceeds 5 years, the applicant must show that the aircraft meets the applicable requirements of this part that were effective on a date, to be selected by the applicant, not earlier than 5 years before the issue of the type certificate.
( b ) Section 21.101(a) of this chapter notwithstanding, each person who applies for an acoustical change to a type design specified in § 21.93(b) of this chapter must show compliance with the applicable requirements of this part that are effective on the date of application for the change in type design. When the time interval between the date of application for the change in type design and the issuance of the amended or supplemental type certificate exceeds 5 years, the applicant must show that the aircraft meets the applicable requirements of this part that were effective on a date, to be selected by the applicant, not earlier than 5 years before the issue of the amended or supplemental type certificate.
( c ) If an applicant elects to comply with a standard in this part that was effective after the filing of the application for a type certificate or change to a type design, the election: ( 1 ) Must be approved by the FAA;
( 2 ) Must include standards adopted between the date of application and the date of the election;
( 3 ) May include other standards adopted after the standard elected by the applicant as determined by the FAA.
[Amdt. 36-54, 67 FR 45211, July 8, 2002; Amdt. 36-24, 67 FR 63195, Oct. 10, 2002]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,389,014
<SECURITIES>                                 2,054,707
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,594,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,089,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,321,083
<PP&E>                                       5,015,297
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,526,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,806,327
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       124,916
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,899,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,526,605
<SALES>                                      4,214,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,214,020
<CGS>                                        2,934,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,934,465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,191,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              87,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,275
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,275
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,275
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00



</TABLE>
**C H**  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 04261 IN THE MATTER OF: J.D.L., Respondent and Appellant . **GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 12 , 2022 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court August 8 2022

08/08/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0261
# EUR-Lex - 31998R2182 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998R2182

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2182/98 of 9 October 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1848/93 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs **

*
Official Journal L 275 , 10/10/1998 P. 0018 - 0018 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2182/98 of 9 October 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1848/93 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Whereas Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1848/93 of 9 July 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2515/94 (3), allows for action to be taken to inform the public of the meaning of the 'traditional speciality guaranteed` indication and the logo in the Community languages; whereas the action taken, notably a Community campaign directed at producers, distributors and consumers, has been demonstrably useful and effective;

Whereas given the useful positive impact of the action taken to make Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 and the logo and indication it provides for known, a four-year extension to the time limit set in Regulation (EEC) No 2037/93 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1726/98 (5), should be made so that it can be continued and its impact increased;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Certificates of Specific Character,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1848/93 is amended as follows:

1. The word 'five` is replaced by 'nine`.

2. The following subparagraph is added:

'An assessment of the action taken shall be made`.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 9 October 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 9.

(2) OJ L 168, 10. 7. 1993, p. 35.

(3) OJ L 275, 26. 10. 1994, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 185, 28. 7. 1993, p. 5.

(5) OJ L 224, 11. 8. 1998, p. 1.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10623 Summary Calendar

AMANDA KYZER DARBY ,
Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v.
JODY R. UPTON , Respondent

– Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Nor thern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CV

- 138

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Amanda Kyzer Darby, federal inmate # 54622

- 018 , was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to 120 months of imprisonment following her guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Her direct appeal was dismissed, and
her first 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion was denied. Now incarcerated in the Southern District of Texas, Darby filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition , which the

* 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 f orth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 12, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10623 Document: 00513833850 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2017No. 16

- 10623

2 district court denied as seeking relief unav ailable through such a petition

. We
review issues of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Wilson v. Roy , 643 F.3d 433, 434 (5th Cir. 2011). Construing her appellate brief liberally, Darby has fail ed to identify any error in the district court’s disposition of her motion. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 2 25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED. Case: 16-10623 Document: 00513833850 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2017
* Pursuant to 5TH 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50415 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN GONZALEZ-GARIBAY, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2472

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Martin Gonzalez-Garibay (Gonzalez) appeals his 84-month sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to weigh properly the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a). Gonzalez’s sentence was within a properly calculated advisory guideline range and is presumed reasonable. See UnitedNo. 06-50415 -2- States v. Alonzo , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Giving “great deference” to such a sentence, and recognizing that the sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence under § 3553(a), we conclude that Gonzalez has failed to rebut the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. See id. Gonzalez argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 84-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Gonzalez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
§ 1635.4 Prohibited practices—in general. ( a ) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual on the basis of the genetic information of the individual in regard to hiring, discharge, compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
( b ) It is unlawful for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer any individual for employment or otherwise discriminate against any individual because of genetic information of the individual.
( c ) It is unlawful for a labor organization to exclude or to expel from the membership of the organization, or otherwise to discriminate against, any member because of genetic information with respect to the member.
( d ) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs, including on-the-job training programs to discriminate against any individual because of the individual's genetic information in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training or retraining.
digitalpost_10q-ex1029.htm

Exhibit 10.29

FORM OF EXTENSION AGREEMENT





This Interest Amendment Agreement (“Amendment”), made this 9th day of November 2009, by Digital Post Interactive, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Company”) and the investors and security holders of the Company listed on Appendix A (“Prior Investors”).





WHEREAS, in October 2007, the Company entered into a private placement investment with the Prior Investors in the form of securitized convertible notes (“Notes”) with warrant coverage;



 

WHEREAS, the Notes have maturity dates two years from the date of issue and are now past due and the Company desires for the Prior Investors to agree to extend the maturity one additional year from the original maturity date,



 

WHEREAS, as consideration for extending the maturity date, the Company offers to lower the conversion price of the Notes from $.123 per share to $0.08 per share with such conversion being allowed at the option of the Prior Investors at anytime after the execution of this extension agreement,





NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby declared, understood and agreed as follows:






	
1.  
	
The maturity date provisions and conversion price, found at the top of the page one of the Notes prior to this Amendment read as follows:








“.......in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Note") with a conversion at any time during the Term by Purchaser into the common stock of the Company (“Common Stock”) at a fixed price of $0.40
per share (“Conversion Price”), and a 24 month maturity (“Term”).”






	
2.  
	
The Prior Investors agree to amend paragraph such maturity date to now read as follows:








“.......in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Note") with a conversion at any time during the Term by Purchaser into the common stock of the Company (“Common Stock”) at a fixed price of $0.08
per share (“Conversion Price”), and a 36 month maturity (“Term”).”





3.      This is Amendment only amends the Conversion Price and Term of the Notes and does not amend any of the other terms of the Notes and accordingly such other terms of the Notes remain unchanged, intact and in full force.





Agreed and Accepted:













Michael Sawtell

CEO

DigitalPost Interactive, Inc.

 

 

Prior Investor Signatures are found on Appendix A

 







 



 







 



 

Prior Investor Signatures are found on Appendix A





APPENDIX A





Signature Page to Extension Agreement

















Agreed and Accepted:

 

 


Signature

Date:
Agreement, dated as of October 15, 2009 between General Motors Company



 Exhibit 10.7 
 GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY 
 300 Renaissance Center 
 Detroit, Michigan 48265-3000 
 October 15, 2009 
 Motors Liquidation Company 
 300 Renaissance Center 
 Tower 300, 25th Floor, Room D55 
 M/C 482-C25-D81 
 Detroit, MI 48265-3000 

 

	 	Re:	Adjustment Shares 

 Ladies and Gentlemen:

 Reference is made to that certain Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement, dated as of June 26, 2009, by
and among Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation, MLCS, LLC, formerly known as Saturn LLC, a Delaware limited liability, MLCS Distribution Corporation, formerly known as Saturn Distribution
Corporation, a Delaware corporation, MLC of Harlem, Inc., formerly known as Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and General Motors Company, formerly known as NGMCO, Inc., a Delaware corporation and successor-in-interest to
Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC (as amended, the “Purchase Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined are defined in the Purchase Agreement. 
 Pursuant to that certain Merger Agreement, dated as of the date hereof, among Purchaser, GM Merger Subsidiary Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“Merger Subsidiary”), and General Motors Holding Company, a Delaware corporation (to be renamed General Motors Company) (“Holdings”), Merger Subsidiary has merged with and into Purchaser, with Purchaser being the
surviving corporation (the “Merger”). As a result of the Merger, each outstanding share of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of Purchaser (“Purchaser Common Stock”) has been converted into the right to
receive a share of common stock, par value $0.01 per share, of Holdings (“Holdings Common Stock”). 
 The
purpose of this letter agreement is to confirm the parties’ understanding and agreement that, as a result of the Merger, Holdings will issue Holdings Common Stock in lieu of Purchaser issuing Purchaser Common Stock as Adjustment Shares, upon
such terms and in such amounts as are provided for in Section 3.2(c)(i) of the Purchase Agreement, and that, subject to the foregoing, Holdings assumes Purchaser’s obligations under Section 3.2(c) of the Purchase Agreement and
Purchaser will have no further obligation under Section 3.2(c) of the Purchase Agreement. 








			
	Very truly yours,
	
	GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Niharika Ramdev

	Name:	 	Niharika Ramdev
	Title:	 	Assistant Treasurer


 Please confirm and agree with the foregoing in the space provided below. 
  

			
	GENERAL MOTORS HOLDING COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Niharika Ramdev

	Name:	 	Niharika Ramdev
	Title:	 	Assistant Treasurer


  

			
	Acknowledged and agreed to on
	this 15th day of October, 2009 by:
	
	MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Ted Stenger

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	

  

 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO LETTER
AGREEMENT REGARDING ADJUSTMENT SHARES]
#### § 93.251 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes rules applicable to the operation of aircraft to or from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.