alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Commonwealth ex rel. Robertson v. Myers

*453
      *James Robertson,*p.p., for relator.

*Benjamin H. Renshaw, Jr.,*for Commonwealth.

February 3, 1959.

Reimel, J.,

— This matter comes before the court on relator’s petition and rule to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued.

The petition alleges that defendant was denied adequate time to prepare his defense, that he was deprived of counsel, that perjured and hearsay testimony was permitted at his trial, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that he was denied due process of law.

A review of the testimony and the trial before Judge Gerald F. Flood and a jury discloses that relator was not denied adequate time to prepare his defense. Moreover, relator had counsel, whose services he refused, was given the opportunity to engage other counsel and that he chose to act as his own counsel. The record discloses that he cross-examined witnesses in detail and that he argued at great length on his own behalf to the jury. The court is of the opinion that relator was not denied due process of law and there was no ingredient of unfairness in his trial which actively operated in the process that resulted in his confinement: Commonwealth ex rel. McGlinn v. Smith, 344 Pa. 41.

Relator’s allegations of errors in the admission of evidence cannot be raised by habeas corpus proceedings : Commonwealth ex rel. De Poe v. Ashe, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 23.

Upon a careful consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus and an examination of the record in this case the court finds that there are no factual issues for determination and, therefore, no hearing is necessary. Therefore, the rule is discharged and the petition is denied.
WEST AFRICA

Ebola Outbreak

1st Ebola outbreak

in West Africa

Multiple countries:

●Guinea

● Liberia

● Nigeria

● Senegal

● Sierra Leone

Likely host = bats

1 in 2

people who get 

Ebola in this 

outbreak have 

died.

How do you get the Ebola virus?

Direct contact with:

1 Body fluids of a person who is 

sick with or has died from Ebola. 

(blood, vomit, pee, poop, sweat, 

semen, spit, other fluids)

2 Objects contaminated with the 

virus (needles, medical equipment)

3 Infected animals (by contact with 

blood or fluids or infected meat)

Early Symptoms:

Ebola can only be spread to others after 

symptoms begin. Symptoms can appear 

from 2 to 21 days after exposure.

● Fever

● Headache

● Diarrhea

● Vomiting

● Stomach pain

● Unexplained bleeding

or bruising

●Muscle pain

When is someone able to spread

the disease to others?

Ebola only spreads

when people are sick.

A patient must have

symptoms to spread 

the disease to others.

After 21 days, if an

exposed person does

not develop symptoms, 

they will not become 

sick with Ebola.

MONTH

S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems (1205).                    

*Date and Time:*                         June 14, 2000 and June 15, 2000, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 580, Arlington, Virginia 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Joy Paushcke, Program Director, National Earthquake Engineering Simulation Program, Room 545, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA (703) 306-1361.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'00 National Earthquake Engineering Simulation Review Panel proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12456 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
§ 1987.108 Role of Federal agencies. ( a ) ( 1 ) The complainant and the respondent will be parties in every proceeding and must be served with copies of all documents in the case. At the Assistant Secretary's discretion, the Assistant Secretary may participate as a party or as amicus curiae at any time at any stage of the proceeding. This right to participate includes, but is not limited to, the right to petition for review of a decision of an ALJ, including a decision approving or rejecting a settlement agreement between the complainant and the respondent.
( 2 ) Parties must send copies of documents to OSHA and to the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor, only upon request of OSHA, or when OSHA is participating in the proceeding, or when service on OSHA and the Associate Solicitor is otherwise required by the rules in this part.
( b ) The FDA, if interested in a proceeding, may participate as amicus curiae at any time in the proceeding, at the FDA's discretion. At the request of the FDA, copies of all documents in a case must be sent to the FDA, whether or not the FDA is participating in the proceeding.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 835 

To redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North Main Street in 

Memphis, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal 

Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2007 

Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. CORKER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North 

Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Clifford 

Davis and Odell Horton Federal Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 167 North Main 

5 Street in Memphis, Tennessee, commonly known as the 

6 Clifford Davis Federal Building, shall be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Federal 

8 Building’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 835 IS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the ‘‘Clifford Davis and Odell Horton Fed6 eral Building’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

Statement Furnished Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned are the President and Chief Financial Officer of Patriot Motorcycle Corporation (the Company). This Certificate is made pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2005 (the 10-QSB Report).

The undersigned certifies that the 10-QSB Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that the information contained in the 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                       |  |  |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: February 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ MICHEL ATTIAS      
|                       |  |  |  | Michel Attias          
|                       |  |  |  | President              
|                       |  | 
|Date: February 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ DAVID M. GERNAK    
|                       |  |  |  | David M. Gernak        
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Patriot Motorcycle
Corporation and will be retained by Patriot Motorcycle Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS LEGEND CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE DIANA CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE 52
WEEKS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              81
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4594
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       2937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10221
<PP&E>                                            2254
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (310)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   23244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4060
<BONDS>                                           1817
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6007
<OTHER-SE>                                       10827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     23244
<SALES>                                           7154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  7154
<CGS>                                             3132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 16172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13171)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       836
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (12335)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (8175)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (508)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (21018)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.99)
        

</TABLE>
#### Samuel Miller *against*Philip Stoy.

ON CERTIORARI.

Debt due under the timber act. (a )

Endorsement on the summons.

State of demand. .

WHITE and *Armstrong*for plaintiff.

(a )

*Thompson vs. Burdsall, 1 South. 170. Crane*vs.--, *Coxe 53. Cato vs. Gill, Coxe 11. Clark vs. Collins, 3 Gr. 473.*

Opinion of the Court.

Southard J.

There was a trial below, on the return day of the summons, and in the absence of the defendant. The state of demand is in the following words:

“ *Samuel Miller,*To *Philip Stoy,*Dr.

1817. *P'ebruary,*To cutting one white-oak tree and taking the same away without leave, $8 00”

If this was designed as a state of demand, in trespass, there **must be a reversal. It is, in many respects, deficient, and does not at all comport with the style of action which is debt.

But the plaintiff, no doubt, intended to bring an action of debt, under what is called our timber act, *(Pat.*49.) to recover the *penalty*for cutting a single tree. If this be so, the name of the prosecutor and title of the statute ought to be endorsed on the process, *(b)***And the state of demand is defective in not setting out, in what right the plaintiff sued; whether as owner or informer; (c) where the tree was cut; (d) that the defendant had neither right nor permission to cut it; *(e)***and by what act of the legislature the suit was authorised. (f)

There must be a *reversal.*

(b)

*Oliver m. Larzaleer, post 513. Ackerson vs. Zabriskie, 3 Hal. 167. Dallas vs. Hendry, Pen. *973. Griffith vs. West, 5 Hal. 301.*

(c)

*Williamson vs. Carroll, 1 Har. 217. Castner vs. Egbert, 7 Hal. 259. Boswell vs. Robinson, 4 Vr. 273. Harris vs. Moore, Coxe 44---vs. Gaston, Coxe 52. Jones vs. Pitman, 7 Hal. 93. Vandeventer vs. Van Court, Pen. *169.*

(d)

*Hill vs. Carter, 1 Har. 87. Matthews vs. Pemberton, Pen. *428. Kerr vs. Harker, 2 Hal. 349.*

(e)

**See *Winter vs. Peterson, 4 Zab. 524. Davidson vs. Schenck, 2 Vr. 174.*

(f)

 See *Anonymous, Pen. *516. Thorpe vs. Rankin, 4 Har. 36. Crawford vs. N. J. R. R., 4 Dutch. 479.*
# **Exhibit 23.01**

 

 

 

 

## CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

 

Pursuant to 17 CFR 230.437a, a written consent of Arthur Andersen LLP(Andersen) is omitted relating to a prior period for which Andersen was engagedas independent public accountant. As of the filing date, after reasonableefforts, LG&E had not already obtained such a written consent noranticipates being able to obtain such a consent. The lack of written consentmay limit the legal recourse, if any, of investors against Andersen in claims undercertain securities laws based upon the fact of Andersen’s engagement asindependent public accountant, including provision of an accountant’s report byAndersen and inclusion of such report in public filings.

 

----

**Exhibit23.01**

 

 

March 25, 2003

 

 

Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Subsidiary

220 West Main Street

P.O. Box 32010

Louisville, Kentucky 40232

 

Enclosed are our manually signed reports to the use in the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of our reports dated January 21, 2003 relating to theconsolidated financial statement schedules of Louisville Gas and ElectricCompany and Subsidiary (the “Company”).

 

Our manually signed reports serve to authorize the use of our name onour reports in the electronic filing of the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K with the SEC.

 

 

 

 
| /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP     |

 

 

----
[No. 49307-8-I.

Division One.

November 25, 2002.]

#### Brian O’Neill, *Appellant,*v. R. Michael Spano, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-2-15126-8, Mary Yu, J., entered September 7, 11, and 21, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, C.J., concurred in by Kennedy and Cox, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12338]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provision of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' 
(5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board's (``Board'') meeting described below.

TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 9:00 a.m., May 31, 2000.

PLACE: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Public Hearing 
Room, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 352, Washington, DC 20004.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
will convene the thirteenth quarterly briefing regarding the status of 
progress of the activities associated with the Department of Energy's 
Implementation Plan for the Board's Recommendation 95-2, Safety 
Management. Specific matters will include recent and planned site 
verification reviews, actions needed to achieve full implementation by 
September 2000, and progress on developing and refining performance 
indicators. Presentations on site implementation status will be made by 
DOE Field Office representatives, and implementation status DOE 
headquarters offices will be discussed by DOE line managers. DOE will 
also present the status of implementing Recommendation 98-1, Integrated 
Safety Management and the Department of Energy (DOE) Facilities.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Richard A. Azzaro, General 
Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, 
NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-
free number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 
reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise regulate the 
course of this meeting, to recess, reconvene, postpone or adjourn the 
meeting, and otherwise exercise its authority under the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended.

    Dated: May 11, 2000.
John T. Conway,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 00-12338 Filed 5-11-00; 5:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
§ 2.38 Status of nonprofit organizations. ( a ) In general, DOL does not require that an organization, including a religious organization, obtain tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to be eligible for Federal financial assistance under DOL social service programs. Many such programs, however, do require an organization to be a “nonprofit organization” in order to be eligible for such support. Individual solicitations that require organizations to have nonprofit status must specifically so indicate in the eligibility section of the solicitation. In addition, any solicitation for a program that requires an organization to maintain tax-exempt status must expressly state the statutory authority for requiring such status. For assistance with questions about a particular solicitation, applicants should contact the DOL program office that issued the solicitation.
( b ) Unless otherwise provided by statute, in DOL programs in which an applicant must show that it is a nonprofit organization, the applicant must be permitted to do so by any of the following means: ( 1 ) Proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code;
( 2 ) A statement from a State taxing body or the State Secretary of State certifying that: ( i ) The organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State; and
( ii ) No part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual;
( 3 ) A certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document that clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or
( 4 ) Any item described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or national parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate of the organization.
[69 FR 41891, July 12, 2004. Redesignated at 81 FR 19423, Apr. 4, 2016; 85 FR 82141, Dec. 17, 2020; 89 FR 15717, Mar. 4, 2024]
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v COBAS

Case No. 47349, 50-AY

County Court, Dade County

April 29, 1985

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

State Attorney’s Office for plaintiff.

Julio M. Gomez, Gomez, Fente & Del Pino, for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

RICHARD MARGOLIS, County Judge.

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard on April 26, 1985 on Defendant. LOS ANGELES COBAS’ Motion to Suppress and the *115Court hearing argument of counsel, receiving testimony and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

*FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW*

1. The Court hereby finds that the Defendant, LOS ANGELES COBAS was arrested for Driving Under the Influence on January 27th, 1985 at the Golden Glades toll plaza in Dade County, Florida.

2. The Court finds that Defendant, LOS ANGELES COBAS’ breath was not collected at the scene where his arrest took place but instead the Defendant was transported to a Metro-Dade Police Station where he was told to blow one (1) time until the bag filled or whistle sounded thereby collecting one (1) sample of the Defendant’s breath.

3. The Court further finds that there was available in the MetroDade Police Department where the Defendant was offered such test the capability of obtaining a consecutive sample of his breath if the Officer so advised the Defendant.

4. The Court further finds that the failure to collect two (2) consecutive samples of the Defendant’s breath within five minutes was a substantial departure of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Rules and in violation of HRS Rule 10D-42.211(4) and of Florida Statutes 316.1932(a)(1).

5. The Court further finds that Trooper Torres has not received any certification from Health and Rehabilitative Services nor has he completed the forty (40) hour course of instruction in order to be licensed as a technician by Health and Rehabilitative Services.

6. The Court further finds that Trooper Torres received an eight (8) hour course run by Metro-Dade Police Department to instruction persons to operate indium field sampling devices (commonly known as Indium Crimper).

7. The Court further finds that Trooper Torres is not required to complete the aforementioned forty (40) hour course nor is he required to be licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in order to operate any indium field sampling devices (Indium Crimper).

8. The Court hereby holds that the failure to obtain two (2) consecutive samples of Defendant, LOS ANGELES COBAS’ breath within five minutes was a substantial departure of the Rules and Regulations as promulgated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Court further holds that the breath sample *116obtained from the Defendant was obtained at the police station and not in the field, therefore, the Court suppresses the one (1) breath sample collected in this cause and any examinations that might have been performed on said sample. The Court does not suppress any physical tests observations given in this matter.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Dade County, Florida this 29th day of April, 1985.