alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(77 South. 919)

#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

(6 Div. 419.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.)

1. Criminal Law <&wkey;1090(14) — Absence oe Bill oe Exceptions.

Although given and refused charges are set out in the record, the court on appeal cannot review and pass upon such charges, in the absence of a bfll of exceptions and the oral charge of the court.

2. (Criminal Law <&wkey;1090(l) — Absence oe Bill oe Exceptions.

Where the appeal is on the record proper without a bill of exceptions, judgment of conviction will be affirmed, where nothing appears in the record authorizing reversal.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; I-I. P. Heflin, Judge.

Mack Williams, alias, etc., was convicted of grand larceny under an indictment charging robbery and appeals.

Affirmed.

F. Loyd'Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

[1,2] The defendant was tried under an indictment charging him with robbery, was; convicted of the offense of grand larceny, and duly sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary as provided by law. This appeal is on the record proper, without a bill of exceptions, and shows regular proceedings and judgment of conviction following the verdict of the jury. There is a certificate from the presiding judge that *326the time for tendering the hill of exceptions in this cause has expired, and that no bill of exceptions had been presented to him. The given and refused charges are set out in the record, but this court cannot review and pass (upon said charges in the absence of the bill of exceptions and the orhl charge of the court.

We And nothing in the record authorizing a reversal of the judgment from which the appeal is prosecuted.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY
LONGVIEW, WASHINGTON

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-14358) and the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (No. 33-37836) and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-56620)
of Longview Fibre Company of our report dated December 8, 1999, which
appears at Item 8 of Longview Fibre Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K.


\s\ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Portland, Oregon
January 25, 2000
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 26, 2012 

t0319 

Order 

 

March 26, 2012 

144125 & (43) 

BASIM ALJAZI, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 144125 

 COA: 301038 

Ingham CC: 09-001685-CZ 

STATE FARM INSURANCE, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 20, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

strike is DENIED as moot.
#### § 458.60 Actionable complaint.

If it appears to the District Director that there is a reasonable basis for the complaint, and that no offer of settlement satisfactory to the complainant has been made, he shall refer the matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Labor, for the issuance of a notice of hearing as set forth in § 458.69.

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated at 50 FR 31311, Aug. 1, 1985, as amended at 59 FR 15117, Mar. 31, 1994; 62 FR 6094, Feb. 10, 1997]
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 7 October 2004

(2004/C 249/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----

----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3419 — ADECCO/MANPOWER/VEDIORBIS/JV)

(2004/C 249/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----

----

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2004/C 249/03)

2.   Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Division B-1), J-79 5/16, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

----

(1)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2)  Telex COMEU B 21877; fax : (32-2) 295 65 05.

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3492 — EXEL/TIBBET & BRITTEN)

(2004/C 249/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 August 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3555 — HEWLETT-PACKARD/SYNSTAR)

(2004/C 249/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 September 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----

----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3552 — DEUTSCHE POST/GUIPUZCOANA)

(2004/C 249/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 September 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
#### § 2560.521-3 Effect on other enforcement authority.

The Secretary's authority under section 521 shall not be construed to limit the Secretary's ability to exercise his or her enforcement or investigatory authority under any other provision of title I of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. 1001 *et seq.* The Secretary may, in his or her sole discretion, initiate court proceedings without using the procedures in this section.

[78 FR 13805, Mar. 1, 2013]
§ 4041A.43 Benefit forms. ( a ) *General rule.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the sponsor of a plan that is closed out shall provide for the payment of any benefit attributable to employer contributions only in the form of an annuity.
( b ) *Exceptions.* The plan sponsor may pay a benefit attributable to employer contributions in a form other than an annuity if: ( 1 ) The present value of the participant's entire nonforfeitable benefit, determined using the interest assumption under §§ 4044.41 through 4044.58, does not exceed the dollar amount specified in section 203(e)(1) of ERISA.
( 2 ) The payment is for death benefits provided under the plan.
( 3 ) The participant elects an alternative form of distribution under paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) *Alternative forms of distribution.* The plan sponsor may allow participants to elect alternative forms of distribution in accordance with this paragraph. When a form of distribution is offered as an alternative to the normal form, the plan sponsor shall notify each participant, in writing, of the form and estimated amount of the participant's normal form of distribution. The notification shall also describe any risks attendant to the alternative form. Participants' elections of alternative forms shall be in writing.
[61 FR 34052, July 1, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 38306, July 16, 1998; 88 FR 76664, Nov. 7, 2023; 89 FR 48300, June 6, 2024]
# Euroopa Liidu C 184A/17.

| | ISSN 1725-5171 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 184A |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 47. köide17. juuli 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5171

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 184A

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

47. köide17. juuli 2004

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Teatised |
| | Nõukogu |
| 2004/C 184A/1 | | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

III   Teatised

Nõukogu

2004/C 184A/1

1

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

III Teatised

Nõukogu

| 17.7.2004 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | CA 184/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2004

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

CA 184/1

---

TEADE VABA TÖÖKOHA KOHTA

(Ref. A/014)

PEADIREKTOR

(2004/C 184 A/01)

Nõukogu peasekretariaat kavatseb tööle võtta justiits- ja siseasjade — peadirektoraat H — peadirektori.

Täiendavat teavet (inglise ja prantsuse keeles) ja taotlusvorme on võimalik saada personali valiku ja töölevõtu osakonnast e-posti aadressil: service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int või veebiaadressil: http://ue.eu.int/concours.

Tähtaeg: 3. september 2004, postitamise kuupäeva tõendab postitempel.

---
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. C.

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKETNO. FAA-2014-0685 SMYRNA AIR CENTER. FAA CASE NO. 2011CE190020 Respondent Judge J.E.· Sullivan

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENTIWITHDRA WAL OF COMPLAINT Pursuantto a settlement reached bythe parties and to the provisions of 14 C.F.R. §13.215, the Federal AviationAdministration (FAA), by counsel, hereby withdraws its Complaint dated September 19,2014. Respectfully submitted this 28th day ofOctober, 2015.

R1\!M. LANDERS Enforcement Division, Southern Team 1701 Columbia Ave. College Park, GA 30337 

# RECEIV NOV -2 2015 

## HEARING DOCKETCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Notice ofSettlement/Withdrawal ofComplaint was sent: original and one copy via certifiedmail to: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000
one copy viafacsimile and Federal Express to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20, Room El2-320 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE East Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590 facsimile: (202) 366-7536

one copy via certified mail to: Mink & Duke, PLLC c/o Thomas F. Mink, II, Esq. c/o William M. Leech, III, Esq. P.O. Box 198742 Nashville, TN 37219-8742



# ~A~

Program Analyst Office ofthe Regional Counsel

Dated
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                        9
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
<RESTATED>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1998

<CASH>                                   4,110,168
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                     391,982
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           103,334
<TRADING-ASSETS>                           129,294
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             15,641,934
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     233,014
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       236,623
<LOANS>                                 48,019,685
<ALLOWANCE>                                704,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          74,276,016
<DEPOSITS>                              54,312,162
<SHORT-TERM>                             6,645,968
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                      1,257,015
<LONG-TERM>                              5,457,203
<COMMON>                                     8,157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                               6,595,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          74,276,016
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          3,928,140
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          994,077
<INTEREST-OTHER>                           129,971
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         5,052,188
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       1,843,674
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       2,516,567
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    2,535,621
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              164,790
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          16,530
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                          2,529,816
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          1,206,366
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>               1,206,366
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               805,450
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                4.04
<LOANS-NON>                                215,159
<LOANS-PAST>                               146,121
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                             1,501
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           657,098
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              235,704
<RECOVERIES>                                72,219
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          704,846
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       704,846
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          0


</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Peter-Mark Vogel, hereby certifies, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Manas Petroleum
      Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2010, fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
|(b) | information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of Manas Petroleum Corporation.                                                  

Date: August 13, 2010

/s/ Peter-Mark VogelPeter-Mark VogelChief Executive
Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)

---
#### BURNS v WESTERN & SOUTHERN LIFE INS CO

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9953.

Decided Dec 9, 1930

Melville W. Vickery, Cleveland, for Burns.

Cannon, Spieth, Taggart, Spring & Annat, Cleveland, for Ins Co.

LEMERT, PJ and SHERICK, J., (5th Dist) sitting.

*181SHERICK, J.

Exhaustive briefs have been furnished and our attention has been called to many authorities and coming now to the law applicable to the question involved, it seems quite well settled that by the terms of the clause in the policy known as the facility payment clause, that the company is given thereby the option to pay to anyone of the persons having the qualifications named in the clause. This option of itself necessarily excludes any right on the part of the plaintiff to enforce payment, for it is conclusively shown by the testimony of the plaintiff in error that she does not come within any given class named in the policy.

The following cases are directly in point:

> Mazurley vs. Metropolitan Insurance Co., 79 N. J. Law, 271

> Lewis vs. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,

> 178 Mass. 52

> Wokal vs. Belsky, 53 App. Div. 167

> 65 N. Y. Supplement, 817

> 202 Mo. App. 124.

The- plaintiff in error holds the view that because she paid certain premiums that of itself entitles her to recovery on the policy. It is stated in the Lewis case supra, that payment of the premiums on the policy of another gives the person so paying them no interest in the policy as the payments are presumed to have been made on behalf of the insured ,and we believe this to be a correct statement of the law.

We also note that the Fourth District sitting by designation in this County in the case of Coyne vs Metropolitan Life Insurance Company considered a like question and its finding is in harmony with the finding in this case. Should this court adopt such a rule as is claimed by the plaintiff in error, ,and carrying it to its logical conclusion, situations might develop where one upon the death of an insured under one of these industrial policies might secure possession of the policy and there might then ensue a race between distant relations, neighbors or strangers to secure and turn into the company the policy and premium books and proof of loss, and thereby in many instances fraudulently seek to obtain that which rightfully should belong to another.

We hold the view that the plaintiff in error is not entitled to recovery on the policy in question and that the trial court rightfully found in favor of the defendant company.

It is, therefore, the judgment of this court that this cause be affirmed. Exceptions.

Lemert, PJ., concurs. Houck, J., not participating.
[No. 50223-9-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### Jerry Kubat, et al., *as Guardians, Appellants,*v. The City of Everett, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 01-2-05516-8, Kenneth L. Cowsert, J., entered March 13, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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 Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald P. Erickson, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company, 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  my  knowledge  and  belief:





(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/ Ronald P. Erickson


Ronald P. Erickson


Chief Executive Officer, President and Director








Date:  May 13, 2010
[No. 28101-5-II.

Division Two.

December 6, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Roberta Francine Smith, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 01-1-03696-5, James R. Orlando, J., entered November 21, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and Bridgewater, J.
JAMES RICHARD BAIN

,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2883

Opinion filed July 9, 2014.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

-- Original

Jurisdiction

.

James Richard Bain, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ.

, CONCUR.
**AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF INTENT**

 

WHEREAS:

A.           General Gold Corporation (the "General") and Gold Range LLC (the "Seller") entered into a Letter of Intent (the “Letter of Intent”) regarding the purchase of Independence Mines LLC; and

B.           The Purchaser and the Seller wish to revise the Letter of Intent as described in this Amendment to Letter of Intent.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF INTENT witnesses that, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
| 1. | The Letter of Intent is amended such that all references to the Closing Date are replaced with June 30, 2005, and specifically the relevant section is replaced with the following: |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

"Should General elect not to close within a reasonable period, at the conclusion of the Due Diligence period (by June 30, 2005), the work product generated shall be the sole property of the Seller, the Letter of Intent shall become null and void and have no further effect."
| 2. | The parties each acknowledge and agree that all other provisions of the Letter of Intent remain in full force and effect. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | This Amendment to Letter of Intent may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original and all of which will together constitute one and the same instrument. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 4. | Delivery of an executed copy of this Amendment to Letter of Intent by electronic facsimile transmission or other means of electronic communication capable of producing a printed copy will be deemed to be execution and delivery of this Amendment to Letter of Intent as of the date first set forth above. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment to Letter of Intent as of the date written below.

**GENERAL GOLD CORPORATION**

 

/s/ William Whittle                                                

Name:  William Whittle
| Title: | President |
|--------|-----------|

 

**GOLD RANGE LLC**

 

/s/ Robert Carrington                                              

Name:  Robert Carrington

 

The above terms are accepted this 31st day of December, 2004.

 

 

D/WLM/699150.1