alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued December 21,

affirmed December 29, 1928.

#### STATE *v.*W. C. DRAKE.

(272 Pac. 889.)

*587For appellant there was a brief and oral argument by *Mr. Dal M. King.*

For respondent there was a brief and oral argument by *Mr. J. B. Bedingfield.*

McBRIDE, J.

 This case comes here practically on exceptions to the action of the court in the matters above noted. We are of the opinion that, even omitting the testimony offered after the case was reopened, there was sufficient evidence to go the *588jury to satisfy them that the defendant and prosecutrix were not husband and wife. The defendant answered to the name of W. C. Drake. The prosecutrix testified that her name was Charmain Knight; that she was of the age of fourteen years and that her family and defendant had lived near Powers for several years. It was also in evidence that the defendant was a man of fifty-two years of age. Statutes of this state make it impossible for a child under the age of fifteen years to many under any circumstances and this fact taken in connection with the testimony of the prosecutrix as to her name and age would justify the jury in concluding that she was not married to the defendant. In fact, she could not be legally married to him. So independent of the ruling of the court allowing the case to be reopened to show this fact, there was sufficient evidence on that point to go to the jury. In addition to this, it may be remarked that the defendant testified that when he first went to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Knight he objected, on the ground of impropriety, to the prosecutrix sleeping in the same bedroom with him. In addition to this we think that the court clearly had the right, even if in testimony as to the nonmarriage of the parties nothing had been said as to the fact of the nonexistence of such relation, to reopen the case here when such omission had been discovered, and, before the case had been finally submitted to the jury, to allow such omission to be corrected. Such authority should be very carefully exercised. It would have been a failure of justice to have dismissed the defendant upon a mere technicality of this character where the evidence was clear as to his guilt. The same view obtains as to the proof of venue. There was not an entire absence of proof *589in the first instance. It was shown that the alleged act was committed near Powers directly south of that town, at a distance of about two miles therefrom, and the court will take judicial notice that Powers is a postoffice town and is situated in Coos County, Oregon, and certainly the Circuit Courts of that county will take judicial notice of their boundaries: Citing *Southern Pacific Co.*v. *Erickson,*103 Or. 311, 317 (204 Pac. 942); *Nicholas*v. *Yamhill County,*102 Or. 615, 622 (192 Pac. 410, 203 Pac. 593); *Gager*v. *Henry,*5 Sawy. 237 (Fed. Cas. No. 5172); *State*v. *Powers,*25 Conn. 47, 50; *Harding*v. *Strong,*42 Ill. 149 (89 Am. Dec. 415); *Indianapolis & Cincinatti R. R. Co.*v. *Case,*15 Ind. 42.

We think there was no error in allowing the case to be reopened to introduce more formal testimony, although in our view it was to a great extent cumulative. Affirmed.
#### Joseph Demund *against*Thomas French.

ON CERTIORARI.

CASE argued by *Vroom,*for plaintiff; *Halsey*for defendant.

Evidence.

Kirkpatrick, C. J.

This was an action of trover, for 200 cocks of hay. It appears by the justice’s return and the affidavits accompanying the same, that *Demund*had taken the- benefit of the insolvent act, and that one *Shafer,*had been appointed his assignee; that *F-ench*instituted this suit, on the 15th of *July**1818, and that it was adjourned from time to time, till the 27th of *August*following ; that during this time, viz. on the 3rd of *August*1818, *Shafer*the assignee, instituted a suit against *French,*before one justice *Little,*which was adjourned till the 24th of that month, and then tried, and a judgment rendered for *Shafer,*the plaintiff

Upon the trial of the cause now before us, it was alleged by *Demund,*that this very matter about the hay, had been set up by *French,*in *Shafer’s*action against him, and had been there investigated and settled; and to prove that it was so, offered the transcript of *Little’s*docket, in that case duly certified; but it was overruled by the justice, upon the ground, that it was not a proceeding between the same parties, *(a)*
      **This, I think, was error. How the matter might have appeared, is immaterial, it ought to have been examined.

*957Southard J.

remarked, that a rule had been taken, on the justice, to amend his record, but he had thereto, that he could not, in the particulars required ; and affidavits were taken, which, among other things, stated, that a witness, *Creely,*had been offered, to prove, that the hay in dispute, belonged to the defendant, or his assignee, *Shafer,*but that the justice refused to permit any question to be put, proving the property in them, or any other person, except the plaintiff. There must be some mistake, in this matter. That any justice, in such an action, should prevent the defendant from proving, that the right of property was in himself, and not in the plaintiff, is scarcely credible, in judicial proceedings. If he did so, there ought to be a reversal for that cause, for there has been a complete perversion of justice.

Judgment reversed.

*Carhart vs. Miller, ante 573. Davisson vs. Gardner, 5 Hal. 289. State vs. Water Commissioners, 1 Vr. 247.*
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

125 

KA 08-00544 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

GARTH O. BENNETT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM G. PIXLEY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NICOLE M. FANTIGROSSI

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John

J. Ark, J.), rendered January 24, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree

(four counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.26 Request for waiver or administrative review. ( a ) If the statute under which waiver or administrative review is sought is *mandatory,* that is, if it prohibits the agency from collecting the debt prior to the agency's consideration of the request for waiver or review (see *Califano* v. *Yamasaki,* 442 U.S. 682 (1979)), then collection action must be suspended until either ( 1 ) The agency has considered the request for waiver/review, or
( 2 ) The applicable time limit for making the waiver/review request, as prescribed in the agency's regulations, has expired and the debtor, upon proper notice, has not made such a request.
( b ) If the applicable waiver/review statute is *permissive,* that is, if it does not require all requests for waiver/review to be considered, and if it does not prohibit collection action pending consideration of a waiver/review request (for example, 5 U.S.C. 5584), collection action may be suspended pending agency action on a waiver/review request based upon appropriate consideration, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether: ( 1 ) There is a reasonable possibility that waiver will be granted, or that the debt (in whole or in part) will be found not owing from the debtor;
( 2 ) The Government's interests would be protected, if suspension were granted, by reasonable assurance that the debt could be recovered if the debtor does not prevail; and
( 3 ) Collection of the debt will cause undue hardship.
( c ) If the applicable statutes and regulations would not authorize refund by the agency to the debtor of amounts collected prior to agency consideration of the debtor's waiver/review request in the event the agency acts favorably on it, collection action should ordinarily be suspended, without regard to the factors specified in paragraph (b) of this section, unless it appears clear, based on the request and the surrounding circumstances, that the request is frivolous and was made primarily to delay collection.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA



### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

MICHAEL FORD

,

Appellant

,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee.

No. 2D 20 24

- 0940

July 3 , 202 4

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco , Judge.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, LaROSE , and LUCAS , JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
# EUR-Lex - 32000D0079 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000D0079

**2000/79/EC: Commission Decision of 20 December 1999 amending Decision 1999/710/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations (notified under document number C(1999) 4685) (Text with EEA relevance.) **

*
Official Journal L 030 , 04/02/2000 P. 0039 - 0040 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 20 December 1999

amending Decision 1999/710/EC on drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of minced meat and meat preparations

(notified under document number C(1999) 4685)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/79/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 98/603/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) a provisional list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations has been drawn up by Commission Decision 1999/710/EC(3);

(2) the Czech Republic and New Zealand have sent a list of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations and for which the responsible authorities certify that the establishments are in accordance with the Community rules;

(3) provisional lists of establishments producing minced meat and meat preparations can thus be drawn up for the Czech Republic and New Zealand in accordance with the procedure laid down in Decision 95/408/EC in respect of certain countries;

(4) 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 text of the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex to Decision 1999/710/EC.

Article 2

The Decision shall apply with effect from 15 December 1999.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1999.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 289, 28.10.1998, p. 36.

(3) OJ L 281, 4.11.1999, p. 82.

ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

"País: REPÚBLICA CHECA/Land: TJEKKISKE REPUBLIK/Land: TSCHECHISCHE REPUBLIK/Χώρα: ΤΣΕΧΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΑ/Country: CZECH REPUBLIC/Pays: REPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE/Paese: REPUBBLICA CECA/Land: TSJECHISCHE REPUBLIEK/País: REPÚBLICA CHECA/Maa: TSEKKI/Land: TJECKISKA REPUBLIKEN

>TABLE>

País: NUEVA ZELANDA/Land: NEW ZEALAND/Land: NEUSEELAND/Χώρα: ΝΕΑ ΖΗΛΑΝΔΙΑ/Country: NEW ZEALAND/Pays: NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDE/Paese: NUOVA ZELANDA/Land: NIEUW-ZEELAND/País: NOVA ZELÂNDIA/Maa: UUSI-SEELANTI/Land: NYA ZEELAND

>TABLE>"
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-09-0542 SAT Date: 8/14/2009 Print Date: 3/17/2010

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 1 1
Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ;
Keywords : Keywords: SENS-S; IRR-S,E; AQUATOX
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-09-0542 FATE: Liquid with MP < 25 EC (E) log Kow = 4.09 (E); S = 28.6 mg/L at 25 EC (E) VP = 5.9E-2 torr at 25 EC (E) BP = 235 EC (E) H = 4.66E-4 (E) log Koc = 2.57 (E) log Fish BCF = 2.36 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.952 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg; OECD 301B(Mod Sturm CO2 ev): 91.7%/28d; OECD 301F(Mano Resp): 65%/28d. Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wkSorption to soils/sediments = moderate - strong Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 3 hrs Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 6 da Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 2.0 hr via OH radical Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 2.1 hr via ozone PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl due to biodeg

Health : Health Summary: Expect moderate absorption via all routes ( p che m ). Concern for dermal sensitization and dermal and eye irritation based on submitted test data for an analogue. Test Data: Summary data for analogues: Antimicrobial activity; rat oral LD50 = 5000 mg/kg; rabbit dermal LD0 = 5000 mg/kg; no skin irritation in humans at 10% ai; slight but persistent skin irritation in rabbits, erythema and dry flaky skin persisted to day 13 or 14; (+) for skin sensitization in guinea pigs using the Magnusson-Kligman assay at >10% ai, (-) at 1 - 5% ai; no skin sensitization in humans at 10% ai
rat oral LD0 = 25 g/kg; no skin sensitization in humans at 2% ai

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.6 daphnid 48-h LC50 2.5 green algal 96-h EC50 0.86 fish

_ chronic value 0.087 daphnid chronic value 0.93 algal

_ chronic value 0.43 Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value

_ Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for esters; SAR chemical class = ester; MW 184; liquid with unknown mp (M); log Kow = 4.09 (EPI); S = 28.6 mg/L at 20 °C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 9

SARs esters SAR Class esterEcotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
----

----

III Upplysningar

Rådet

----

LEDIG TJÄNST

(ref. A/014)

GENERALDIREKTÖR

(2004/C 184 A/01)

Europeiska unionens generalsekretariat önskar anställa en generaldirektör inom generaldirektorat H – Rättsliga och inrikes frågor.

Utförligare information (på engelska och franska) samt ansökningsblanketter kan erhållas från avdelningen för uttagningsprov och rekrytering på följande e-postadress: service.recrutement@concilium.eu.int, eller på avdelningens webbsida med följande adress: http://ue.eu.int/concours

Sista ansökningsdag är den 3 september 2004; poststämpelns datum gäller.

----
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Financial Officer under Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

     I Maurice Colson, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc.;

     2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any 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 quarterly report.

     3.   Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

          c)   Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a)   All significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls.

     6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date: August 24, 2004              /s/Maurice Colson


                                   Maurice Colson, Principal
                                   Financial Officer
#### Burks *v.*The State.

Robbery.

(Decided December 18, 1916.

73 South. 824.)

Criminal Law; Capital Case; Record. — While formerly it was necessary, where one was indicted for a capital felony, that the record show an order setting the case specially, and for a special venire under § 7264, Code 1907, it is now no longer necessary, in fact improper, that these orders should be shown by the record, unless some question is raised thereon in the trial court. (§ 6256, Code 1907, as amended by Acts 1915, p. 708.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

George Burks was convicted of robbery and he appeals.

Affirmed.

No counsel marked for appellant.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

The transcript in this case presents no bill of exceptions. The record proper shows an indictment, a finding of guilty, and a judgment and sentence of the court sentencing the defendant to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 10 years for robbery. The record shows that the defendant was indicted for a capital offense and does not show an order setting the case specially for trial and an order for a special venire; and while such orders, under provisions of section 7264 of the Code of 1907, were necessary to be shown to sustain a judgment of conviction *(Harper v. State,*13 Ala. App. 47, 69 South. 302), it is no longer necessary — in fact, is not proper — that these orders should be shown by the record, unless some question was raised thereon before the trial court, since the act amendatory of section 6256 of the Code of 1907, adopted September 22, 1915. See Acts 1915, pp. 708, 709. The record is in due form and presents no reversible error.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 1926
Editorial Notes: 1. At 44 FR 8577, Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at 44 FR 20940, Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of 29 CFR part 1926 together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in 29 CFR part 1910, which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry. 2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at 84 FR 21597, May 14, 2019.

§ 1926.912 Underwater blasting. ( a ) A blaster shall conduct all blasting operations, and no shot shall be fired without his approval.
( b ) Loading tubes and casings of dissimilar metals shall not be used because of possible electric transient currents from galvanic action of the metals and water.
( c ) Only water-resistant blasting caps and detonating cords shall be used for all marine blasting. Loading shall be done through a nonsparking metal loading tube when tube is necessary.
( d ) No blast shall be fired while any vessel under way is closer than 1,500 feet to the blasting area. Those on board vessels or craft moored or anchored within 1,500 feet shall be notified before a blast is fired.
( e ) No blast shall be fired while any swimming or diving operations are in progress in the vicinity of the blasting area. If such operations are in progress, signals and arrangements shall be agreed upon to assure that no blast shall be fired while any person is in the water.
( f ) Blasting flags shall be displayed.
( g ) The storage and handling of explosives aboard vessels used in underwater blasting operations shall be according to provisions outlined herein on handling and storing explosives.
( h ) When more than one charge is placed under water, a float device shall be attached to an element of each charge in such manner that it will be released by the firing. Misfires shall be handled in accordance with the requirements of § 1926.911.
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v SHARP

Case No. 67174/75RG

County Court, Volusia County

October 18, 1989

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Elizabeth A. Blackburn, Assistant State Attorney, for plaintiff, State of Florida (County Court Case)

Eric Latinsky, Esquire, for defendant (County Court Case)

Ben Fox, State Attorney’s Office, for appellant State.

Eric A. Latinsky, Esquire, for appellee Sharp.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FREDDIE J. WORTHEN, County Judge.

*ORDER*

THIS CAUSE having come on for hearing upon the Defendant’s *85Motion to Suppress Breath Test Results and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Breath Test Results is granted. After hearing testimony in this cause, the Defendant was observed for eighteen (18) minutes prior to the administration of the first breath test. This Court finds that the eighteen minute observation period is not in substantial compliance with H.R.S. Rule 10D-42.024(f).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at the Volusia County Courthouse Annex, 125 East Orange Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, this 18th day of October, 1989.
POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned Director and/or
officer of Kinark Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
hereby constitutes and appoints Paul R. Chastain the true and lawful
agent and attorney-in-fact of the undersigned with full power of substitution
and authority to sign for the undersigned, as Director or an officer of the
Company, or as both, the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the period
ended December 31, 1997, and any and all exhibits and amendments thereto
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C.
pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; hereby ratifying and confirming all acts taken by such agent
and attorney-in-fact as herein authorized.

Dated:  March 23, 1998                              /s/ Joseph J. Morrow
                                                    Joseph J. Morrow