alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(78 South. 416)

#### WINDER v. STATE.

(7 Div. 451.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

1. Homicide <&wkey;112(2) — Defenses—Provoking Difficulty — Freedom from Fault — Evidence.

Where accused at a public entertainment became boisterous, was evicted, and warned to stay out, but attempted to re-enter the house, in doing which he shot the master of ceremonies, he was not free from fault.

2. Assault and Battery &wkey;>48 — Affray — Evidence.

Where accused, after being evicted from a public entertainment and warned to stay out, sought to return, and in so doing attacked one in charge, he was guilty of an assault or an affray.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Thomas W. Coleman, Jr., Judge.

Ed Winder was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Charles F. Douglass, of Anniston, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

[1] The difficulty between defendant and Woodall, the person alleged to have been assaulted, occurred at a schoolhouse, where a public entertainment was in progress, and the evidence shows without dispute that before the difficulty the defendant, while in the house where a hundred or more persons, including both men and women, were present, became boisterous, and was requested by the “master of ceremonies” to be quiet or leave the house; that thereupon he was taken out of the house, and as he was leaving the house he fired his pistol, and immediately 'thereafter, with a pistol in his hand, he attempted to enter the house, and, according to the theory advanced by his testimony, after Woodall had warned him if he came back into the house he (Woodall) would eject him, and in his attempt to enter the house he encountered Woodall, and they engaged in a fight, in which Woodall was shot. This evidence shows without dispute that the defendant was not free from fault. Reese v. State, 135 Ala. 13, 33 South. 672; Langham v. State, 12 Ala. App. 46, 68 South. 504.

[2] The undisputed evidence also shows that defendant, after the warning of Wood-all not to- enter the house attempted to enter it, and engaged in a fight with Woodall. Under this evidence defendant was guilty of an assault or an affray, and it was not error for the court to instruct the jury that if they believed the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, they should not acquit the defendant. Warren v. State, 197 Ala. 313, 72 South. 624; Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 36 South. 1012.

The question of the intent to murder was left to the jury by the oral charge of the court, and the charge given at the request of the solicitor in no way invaded the province of the jury in respect to the im.ent.

We find no error in the record.

Affirmed.
§ 31.59 Trapeze, basket, or other means provided for occupants. ( a ) The trapeze, basket, or other means provided for carrying occupants may not rotate independently of the envelope.
( b ) Each projecting object on the trapeze, basket, or other means provided for carrying occupants, that could cause injury to the occupants, must be padded.
§ 1471.835 Are debarment proceedings formal? ( a ) Debarment proceedings are conducted in a fair and informal manner. The debarring official may use flexible procedures to allow you as a respondent to present matters in opposition. In so doing, the debarring official is not required to follow formal rules of evidence or procedure in creating an official record upon which the official will base the decision whether to debar.
( b ) You or your representative must submit any documentary evidence you want the debarring official to consider.
#### Noah William WADE, Appellee, v. C. C. PEYTON, Superintendent of the Virginia State Penitentiary, Appellant.

No. 11110.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 3, 1967.

Decided May 29, 1967.

*51Reno S. Harp, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Va. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., of Va., on brief) for appellant.

Thomas L. Hicks, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Court-assigned counsel) for appellee.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We think the writ of habeas corpus was improvidently granted by the District Court, for available state remedies are unexhausted.

In 1952 Wade was convicted of the murder of a fellow prisoner in the Virginia State Penitentiary. He was represented at the trial by a competent, court-assigned lawyer, who, ten years later, died. There was no appeal.

In 1966, fourteen years after the trial and four years after the death of his lawyer, Wade for the first time contended in the District Court that within two weeks after his trial he had twice written his lawyer about an appeal, but had received no answer. No such claim had been made in petitions filed in the state courts during and after the lifetime of the lawyer. The District Court, though disbelieving Wade’s other testimonial assertions, accepted this one as uncontradicted.1

 The District Court was misled by the commendable waiver at the hearing by Virginia’s Assistant Attorney General of any objection to the fact that the claim regarding the appeal was not alleged in the petition, accompanied by an apparent concession that the issue had been raised in the state courts. The concession was incidental to an assertion that the point had not been raised in the District Court. It had not been mentioned in the petition, and our examination of the state court petitions discloses that it had never been raised, explicitly or inferentially, there. The non-exhaustion defense should be raised in the District Court, but when the primary claim was not even alleged in the petition, failure of the Attorney General to assert that defense should not impede our requisite and appropriate deference to the state courts. Duffield v. Peyton, *524 Cir., 352 F.2d 802; Thomas v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 4 Cir., 357 F.2d 87; Reickauer v. Peyton, 4 Cir., 351 F.2d 612.

Because available state court remedies have not been exhausted, the grant of the writ is reversed.

Reversed.

1

. Acceptance of this testimonial claim, of course, was permissible by the District Judge, within whose discretion resides the resolution of factual issues of credibility and evidentiary conflicts. It was far from required in light of its belated assertion after testimonial contradiction bad been rendered impossible by the death of the lawyer, of which Wade was only then aware. Wade testified that he was unaware of the death of his lawyer until after the disposition of his last state court petition in 1965.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the Company.

Date: March 9, 2006                    By:
                                                -----------------------
                                       Name:    David L. Norris
                                       Title:   President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tower Financial Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael D. Cahill, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/ Michael D. Cahill
 Michael D. Cahill
 President and Chief Executive Officer
 August 12, 2009
§ 24.114 District court jurisdiction of retaliation complaints under the Energy Reorganization Act. ( a ) If there is no final order of the Secretary, one year has passed since the filing of a complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act, and there is no showing that there has been delay due to the bad faith of the complainant, the complainant may bring an action at law or equity for *de novo* review in the appropriate district court of the United States, which will have jurisdiction over such an action without regard to the amount in controversy.
( b ) Fifteen days in advance of filing a complaint in Federal court, a complainant must file with the Assistant Secretary, the ALJ, or the ARB, depending upon where the proceeding is pending, a notice of his or her intention to file such complaint. The notice must be served on all parties to the proceeding. A copy of the notice must be served on the Regional Administrator, the Assistant Secretary, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and on the Associate Solicitor, Division of Fair Labor Standards, U.S. Department of Labor. The complainant shall file and serve a copy of the district court complaint on the above as soon as possible after the district court complaint has been filed with the court.
#### GRIFFITH in re

Ohio Appeals, 4th Dist, Athens Co

Decided March 12, 1930

John E. Todd, Columbus, and J. H. Cooper, Columbus, for Griffith.

R. D. Williams, Athens, contra.

BY THE COURT

Two .alienists testified that in their opinion Griffith is sane. The superintendent of the hospital and his medical staff express *314the opposite view. The two testifying for the petitioner were in contact with Griffith for an hour or two. The hospital physicians have been in contact with him for several months. If Griffith is insane the evidence of it is in what are claimed to be delusions from which he suffers. Whether the beliefs of Griffith are delusions or beliefs which he is justified in holding is the *sole*question. One of these beliefs relates to his wife’s fidelity. It is claimed for him that inasmuch as his wife told him she had been unfaithful and adheres to her story on the witness stand he can not be said to be deluded because he believes it to be true. Tf that were the whole story the contention of the applicant would be a strong one. There were other evidences of delusion however that are not accounted for. The decree of the trial court was in accordance with the weight of the evidence.

Middleton, PJ., Mauck and Blosser, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, David F. Hoffmeister, Chief Financial Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------
|Dated: August 5, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ David F. Hoffmeister
|                      |  |  |  | David F. Hoffmeister    
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### GRIESS v McMYLER-INTERSTATE CO KALTENBACH, JR. v MIDLAND ENGINEERING CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No. 10455.

Messrs. Tolies, Hogsett & Ginn, Cleveland, for Plaintiff.

Messrs. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, for Defendants.

VICKERY, PJ.

This case came on for hearing upon a motion to dismiss to the appeal and after a consideration and examination of the issues that are involved in this court, we have come to the conclusion that the motion to dismiss the appeal must be and is granted for the reason that the matter sought to-be appealed is not appealable. Whether the original action was a chancery case or not is not material at the' present instance, for the reason that the issue that is appealed is nothing but an issue at law as to who is entitled to the ownership of the property in question; and while the ruling of the court might be a final order from which error might be prosecuted, such order is not appealable, gs it does not relate to a chancery matter, and we base our decision upon the case of Forest City Investment Company vs. Haas, 110 OS. 188 and Neighbors vs. Thistle Down, 26 Oh. Ap. 324.

We have had other decisions in which we took the same position, i. e. other cases which we have decided likewise.

The argument that the case that we had in this court growing out of the same matter was appealable, is not pertinent, for that case was based upon an injunction that was sought in this same litigation by the party appealing here to enjoin the various defendants from interfering with and taking possession of certain property which was claimed to be theirs, and in that case a temporary restraining order was allowed which subsequently was dissolved and an appeal was taken from the order dissolving the temporary restraining order. Such proceedings were based upon a special statute and is not a case in point so far as the instant matter is concerned.

*69We, therefore, hold that the matter appealed to this court is not appealable, and therefore the motipn is well taken and the motion is granted and the appeal dismissed.

Sullivan and Levine, JJ., concur.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 Heather L. Cohen 
 EVP Human
Resources 
 Conmed Corporation 
 525 French Road 

Utica, New York 13502 
 Direct Dial (315) 624-3215 

[DATE], 2015                     

[NAME] 
 [ADDRESS] 

 

			
	Re:		 Change in Control Severance Agreement


 Dear [NAME]: 

Reference is made to the Change in Control Severance Agreement between you and CONMED Corporation (the “Company”) dated as of
[DATE] (the “Agreement”). As you are aware, the Company expects to adopt a general severance plan in the future, the terms of which (and of your participation) will be determined by the Company’s Board of Directors (or
Compensation Committee) in its sole discretion. As a condition to your potential eligibility to participate in any such plan, notwithstanding anything in your Agreement to the contrary, you hereby agree to terminate, effective as of the date set
forth above, your Agreement, which will hereafter be of no further force or effect. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	Heather L. Cohen


  

	
	Agreed and Accepted:
	
	  

	 [NAME]
  


 525 French Road, Utica, New York 13502
— 315-797-8375 — 800-765-8375
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Heartland Bancshares, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, James C. Clinard, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Martha J. Kelley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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/ James C. Clinard                 
|    |  | James C. Clinard                     
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|    |  | May 12, 2004                         
|    | 
|    |  | /s/ Martha J. Kelley                 
|    |  | Martha J. Kelley                     
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer              
|    |  | May 12, 2004
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.                  

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [FEMA-1329-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1329-DR), dated May 13, 2000, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

May 16, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The notice of a major disaster for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 13, 2000. Act (42 U.S.C. 5121*et seq.*), as follows:                 

Chaves, DeBaca, Dona Ana, Eddy, Guadalupe, Lincoln, Otero, Sierra, and Socorro Counties for Individual Assistance. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program) 

Lacy E. Suiter, 

Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate. 

[FR Doc. 00-12806 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
# EUR-Lex - 31999R0691 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R0691

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 691/1999 of 30 March 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied as regards the quality characteristics of the rice **

*
Official Journal L 087 , 31/03/1999 P. 0008 - 0010 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 691/1999 of 30 March 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 708/98 on the taking over of paddy rice by the intervention agencies and fixing the corrective amounts and the price increases and reductions to be applied as regards the quality characteristics of the rice

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2072/98 (2), and in particular Article 8(b) thereof,

Whereas the characteristics that set stained grains and spotted grains apart are very close and distinguishing one from another is often a delicate task when samples taken in accordance with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 708/98 (3) are analysed; whereas those two criteria should therefore be combined and the relevant price reductions applying should be determined on the basis of grain defects covering both stained and spotted grains;

Whereas new varieties of rice are being grown in the Community; whereas they should be entered, with their milling yields, in the list in point B in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 708/98;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 708/98 is hereby amended as follows:

1. the table in Article 2 is replaced by the following.

>TABLE>

2. the table in part B of Annex II is replaced by the following.

>TABLE>

3. Annex III is replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 April 1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 March 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.

(2) OJ L 265, 30. 9. 1998, p. 4.

(3) OJ L 98, 31. 3. 1998, p. 21.

ANNEX

'ANNEX III

>TABLE>

`