alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lester Earl RIMES *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5658

474 S.W. 2d 115

Opinion delivered December 20, 1971

*William C. McArthur,*for appellant.

*Ray Thornton,*Attorney General; *John D. Bridgfor'th,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

John A. Fogleman, Justice.

Appellant argues two points for reversal of his sentence under the habitual criminal act. We affirm because we find no merit in either contention.

Appellant’s initial contention is that the circuit court followed an erroneous procedure in permitting the jury to first consider only the question of his guilt or innocence of the crime for which he was on trial, and, after finding him guilty, to determine his sentence only after hearing evidence of previous convictions. He relies upon *Miller*v. *State,*239 Ark. 836, 394 S. W. 2d 601, decided October 18, 1965, which prescribed a different *679procedure. The General Assembly promptly changed that procedure by Act 639 of 1967 [see Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2330.1 (Supp. 1969)]. We have held that the procedure followed in this case was proper and in accord with this statute. *Ridgeway*v. *State,*251 Ark. 157 (1971), 472 S. W. 2d 108.

Appellant then urges that the circuit court erroneously admitted evidence of previous convictions because the authentication certificate relating to records of alleged previous convictions identified the person convicted as Lester *Ease*Rimes while he was charged in this case as Lester Earl Rimes. The circuit judge stated that the records accompanying the questioned authentication certificates showed that the judgments of conviction were against Lester Earl Rimes.

We find no reversible error in the admission of this evidence, under these circumstances. This court has held that insertion or omission of a middle initial is immaterial and that a wrong letter may be stricken or disregarded, because the law knows but one Christian name. *State*v. *Smith,*12 Ark. 622, 56 Am. Dec. 287. While this rule has been held inapplicable where an initial only is used in lieu of the first or Christian name, particularly where there are other persons in the area who have similar names, its efficacy has not otherwise been questioned. See *Garner*v. *Cluck,*209 Ark. 912, 193 S. W. 2d 661.

Courts ordinarily apply the principle that a middle name or initial is immaterial unless a material issue of identity is raised. See Annot., 15 A. L. R. 3d 968, 974 (1967). Identity of name is prima facie evidence of identity of person, but if appellant was not the person referred to in the record introduced, he was free to offer evidence to that effect. *Higgins*v. *State,*235 Ark. 153, 357 S. W. 2d 499. Since he did not do so, we cannot say that the evidence of these convictions was not sufficient to support the jury’s finding. *Henson*v. *State,*248 Ark. 992, 455 S. W. 2d 101.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001073363
<NAME> AEI INCOME & GROWTH FUND 23 LLC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,590,267
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,590,267
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,590,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,080
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,559,187
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,590,267
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   262
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,387)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,387)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (16.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (16.10)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

Subsidiariesof Registrant

UnitedWisconsin Insurance Company—a Wisconsin insurance corporation

UnitedHeartland Illinois, Inc.—an Illinois corporation, a subsidiary of UWIC

UnitedWisconsin Proservices, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation

UnitedHeartland Life Insurance Company—a Wisconsin insurance company

CompcareHealth Services Insurance Corporation—a Wisconsin corporation

HeartlandDental Plan, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of Compcare
HeartlandDental Plan of Michigan, Inc.—a Michigan corporation, a subsidiary of Heartland Dental

MeridianResource Corporation—a Wisconsin corporation

MeridianMarketing Services, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation

ValleyHealth Plan, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation

UnitedHeartland, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation

InnovativeResource Group, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation

    MeridianManaged Care, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of IRG

    CNRPartners, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of IRG

    Jemzs,LLC—a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of IRG

    YWWorks, LLC—a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of IRG

HMO-W,Incorporated—a Wisconsin corporation

    UnityHealth Plans Insurance Corporation—a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of HMO-W

    HometownInsurance Services, Inc.—a Wisconsin corporation, a subsidiary of HMO-W

ComprehensiveReceivables Group, Inc.—a Michigan corporation

    MichiganHealthcare Collections, Inc.—a Michigan corporation, a subsidiary of CRG
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Bear Lake National WildlifeRefuge and Oxford Slough waterfowl production area: comprehensive conservationplan**
 
Volumes: One | Two
 
SuDoc Number:I 49.44/3-2:B 38/
Item Number:0612-C-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000930335
 
March 27, 2018
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0492 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0492

**98/492/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by Luxembourg (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/1) (Only the French text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 223 , 11/08/1998 P. 0007 - 0007 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 22 July 1998 approving the monitoring plan for the detection of residues or substances in live animals and animal products presented by Luxembourg (notified under document number C(1998) 2166/1) (Only the French text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/492/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC (1), and in particular the first and second subparagraphs of Article 8(1) thereof,

Whereas Luxembourg forwarded to the Commission, in a document dated 20 January 1998, a plan specifying the national measures to be implemented during 1998 for the detection of certain substances and residues thereof in live animals and animal products; whereas that plan was amended by a document dated 3 April and 8 May 1998, in accordance with the Commission's request, bringing it into line with the requirements of Directive 96/23/EC;

Whereas examination of this plan has shown that it complies with Directive 96/23/EC, and in particular Articles 5 and 7 thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The monitoring plan for the detection of the residues and substances referred to in Annex I to Directive 96/23/EC in live animals and animal products presented by Luxembourg is hereby approved.

Article 2

Luxembourg shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 125, 23. 5. 1996, p. 10.
#### The State *v.*Reeves.

Habeas Corpus.

(Decided June 30, 1916.

72 South. 509.)

Bail; Review; Questions of Fiact. — Unless contrary to the great weight of the evidence, the action of the probate court in granting bail to one indicted for murder in the first degree, will not be reviewed where the testimony is ore tenus and conflicting.

Appeal from Tallapoosa Probate Court.

Heard before Hon. G. J. Sorrell.

Heard Reeves was indicted for murder in the first degree, and on application for bail was granted same, and the State appeals.

Affirmed.

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

No counsel marked for appellee.

PELHAM, P. J.

This appeal is from an order of the judge of probate of Tallapoosa county, admitting the petitioner (appellee) to bail to answer a charge of murder in the first degree, of which offense he had been indicted by a grand jury of the county. The record recites: “After hearing all the evidence in this case and carefully considering the same, the court reaches the conclusion, and it is the opinion of thé court, that petitioner, the said H. L. Reeves is entitled to bail.”

The evidence was given ore tenus, and is in conflict. In considering the evidence under such circumstances, the primary tribunal has an obvious advantage over the reviewing court, whose information is derived solely from the written report of the testimony set out in the record, in arriving at a proper conclusion *(Butler, et al. v. State,*1 Ala. App. 265, 56 South. 20) ; and we are not impressed, and cannot say, from a reading of the conflicting evidence set out, with a due observance of the established rule that the finding of the primary tribunal should not be disturbed unless contrary to the great weight or preponderance of the evidence *(State v. Lacey,*158 Ala. 16, 48 South. 343), that the conclusion reached is erroneous.

*28The order of the judge of probate, granting the petitioner bail, must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 11
<TABLE>
                             Rymer Foods Inc.
                     Computation of Earnings Per Share
        for the periods ended October 28, 2000 and October 30, 1999
                   (in thousands, except per share data)

                                            Fiscal Year             Fiscal Year
                                              Ending                  Ending
                                              Oct. 28                 Oct. 30
                                               2000                    1999
                                         ------------------      ------------------
                                         Basic     Diluted       Basic     Diluted
                                        -------     -------     -------    --------
  <S>                                  <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
  AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING
  1  Average shares outstanding           4,300       4,300       4,300       4,300
  2  Net additional shares outstanding
      assuming exercise of stock
      options*                              -           -           -           378
  3  Net additional shares assuming
      conversion of preferred stock
      not considered a common stock
      equivalent at issuance                                                                 -
                                        -------     -------     -------    --------
  4  Average number of common
      shares outstanding                  4,300       4,300       4,300       4,678
                                        =======     =======     =======    ========
  EARNINGS
  5  Income (loss) from continuing
       operations                      $ (1,852)   $ (1,852)   $     33   $      33
                                        =======     =======     =======    ========
  6  Net Income (loss)                 $ (1,852)   $ (1,852)   $     33   $      33
                                        =======     =======     =======    ========
  PER SHARE AMOUNTS
     Income (loss) from continuing
      operations

     (line 5/ line 4)                  $  (0.43)   $  (0.43)   $   0.01   $    0.01
                                        =======     =======     =======    ========
     Net Income (loss)
     (line 6/line 4)                   $  (0.43)   $  (0.43)   $   0.01   $    0.01
                                        =======     =======     =======    ========


  *Since there is a net loss for the year ended October 28, 2000, common stock
   equivalents are excluded from the diluted earnings per share calculations
   since they would be antidilutive.
</TABLE>
                                Page 26
1 Sutton, Lisa

From: Conroy, David

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 12:11 PM

To: Doug McVay; barbara.morin@dem.ri.gov

Cc: Arnold, Anne; Moraff, Kenneth; Ha mjian, Lynne; Simcox, Alison

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Rule

Doug:

This message is a follow

‐ up to my voice message earlier today notifying you about the final action the EPA

Administrator signed today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times,

including when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning

the treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those

emissions are treated in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as

part of this action, EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean

Air Act.

The EPA is calling for 36 states, including your state, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health

and ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy. Your state will have 18

months to submit revisions of your state plan to EPA. Your state’s revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22,

2016.

As part of our notification to your state about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the

EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe.

To inform you of the details on the final action, including the specific SIP provisions your state needs to

address, I have attached a pre

‐ publication version of the action and final fact sheet. These will be posted on

our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html

.

The EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensure the SIP revision process is as efficient as possible. If

you or your staff have questions, please contact Anne Arnold, 617

‐ 918

‐ 1047.

David Conroy

Air Programs Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 12 Office: 617

‐ 918

‐ 1661

iPhone: 857

‐ 829

‐ 8239

Fax: 617

‐ 918

‐ 0661
Exhibit 99.2


                    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 AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  23 LLC (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended
March 31,  2003, as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick W. Keene,
Chief  Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management  XXI,  Inc.,  the
Managing  Member 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/ Patrick W. Keene
                               Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                               AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                               Managing Member
                               May 12, 2003
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **SROVERSELLERS ATT~~~~~**  **GENERAL** 

### Eunoreb.la

Fomer Gsrrloon,Jr., Dfraator lB~artf!lent



## ar Tub110 SaZoty Camp Sabry huat.ltl 9, Tsxem Deur 3l.r: -mix fnobell oertltioate
Your

## reoent Fe departmentreadsas folio inionof this ehlole whloh

oertlfiaate

## or

m %otor Vehiole'me~~8 every **kind** 

## v8n or propelledveh~lole no~r or hereSeotion8b of Artiole667sI,V. A. 

### C. Y., relating to the registrationof vehlolea**gr0viaaS 88**  

### iollowa:Honorable Coiner Garrison, Jr., pape 2
?:o motor vehlole Ehall be reFlsteraa and 

### lioeneedwhloh has 

### a tote1 outAIdewidth, lnolw,- Ing, any load theseon, 

### (913) lnoheo,* * *" of more thnn ninety-air 

### Thus ft Is #eon that the true!: Involved here is not a %otor rshiale’ within the neanlng 

## 0r the LagIslatIve definition In the Vertirloate o? Title hat*, beaauee It I5 not only InelIgIble for registration but Ita cqlatrstlon 

### Is l peolfloally prohib:ted. Tt In olear thrt the Csrtffloate Of Title Act only applies to mOtOr vehloler aa 4atIned therein and the operative pro~irIon5 of tha not ode that term throughout. Provirrlon i8 iaede 

## ror tha mrrrndor and osncellatlon of a oertfrZcets of title when a vehlolo loam its oharaotar as a zaotor vahlole a6 therein 

### defined. Art. 1436-1, Sec. 37, V. A. l?. 0. 

### Also Soot ion 60 of the warn@ Article

l t8tos that :

Se oonolude that the owner 

### of tha over-width truok inquired ebout Is not entftl6d to reoelve a oertiffaata or title for the rehlole though he might oporata ltfo a limited degree over the publio hi&ways under a speolal geralt.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1162 KA 14-00507**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

VERNON W. PEDRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL G. CIANFARANO, OSWEGO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

VERNON W. PEDRO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

GREGORY S. OAKES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OSWEGO (AMY L. HALLENBECK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Oswego County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), rendered September 6, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from the judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal was invalid because, based on County Court’s statements at the time of the plea, “defendant may have erroneously believed that the right to appeal is automatically extinguished upon entry of a guilty plea” ( People v Moyett , 7 NY3d 892, 893). In the absence of a written waiver of the right to appeal “or some indication in the record that defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and other trial rights forfeited incident to a guilty plea, there is inadequate assurance that defendant entered into a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver” of the right to appeal ( id. ; cf. People v Braxton , 129 AD3d 1674, 1675, lv denied 26 NY3d 965).
Given the nature of the offense, we conclude that defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in his pro se supplemental brief concerning the presentence report ( see People v Gibbons , 101 AD3d 1615, 1616), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that it lacks**-2- 1162 KA 14-00507** 

merit.
Finally, we do not consider the additional issue raised by defendant in his main brief concerning the plea allocution inasmuch as his attorney withdrew that contention ( see People v Santoro , 132 AD3d 1241, 1241).

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 32.2   Section 1350 Certification
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens First Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, J. Steven Marcum, Executive Vice President, Finance and 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 the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 By:
/s/ J. Steven MarcumJ. Steven MarcumExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
November 1, 2010
 
 
 This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed ‘filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.