alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(77 South. 923)

#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

(6 Div. 367.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 5, 1918.)

1. Criminal Law i&wkey;260(ll) — Review—Conclusions.

The general rule is that, when the evidence is ore tenus and the trial court has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness, the appellate court will not disturb the conclusion of the trial court, unless it is plainly and palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence.

2. Witnesses <&wkey;337(l) — Impeachment — General Bad Character.

When defendant testifies in his own behalf, he subjects himself to impeachment as any other witness, and may be impeached by inquiry into his general character; inquiry not being limited to reputation for truth and veracity.

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

Charlie Williams was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals.

Affirmed.

F. D. McArthur, of Birmingham, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

*330BRICKEN, J.

The defendant was tried *by*the court without a jury, upon an affidavit charging him with the offense of violating the prohibition law. The complaint contained several counts,' and the defendant was convicted under the first count, from which judgment of conviction he appeals. There are only two questions presented for our consideration: '

[1] 1. Did the evidence of the state make out a case under either of the several alternative averments of the complaint, or, in other words, was the corpus delicti proven? A careful examination of the evidence as shown by the *bill*of exceptions discloses the fact that it was in sharp conflict. It also discloses that there was sufficient evidence upon which to predicate the judgment of guilt, and therefore there was no error in the ruling of the court in declining to grant the motion to exclude the evidence. The general rule is, when the evidence is ore tenus, and the trial court has the advantage of hearing and seeing the witnesses, the appellate court will not disturb the conclusion, unless it is plainly and palpably contrary to the weight of the evidence. Thompson v. Collier, 170 Ala. 469, 54 South. 493, and cases cited therein; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 405, 72 South. 52.

[2] 2. The defendant testified as a witness in his own behalf, and in rebuttal, over the objection of the defendant, the state was permitted to prove the general bad character of the defendant. In this there was no error. When a defendant testifies on the trial of the cause in Ms own behalf, he subjects himself to impeachment as any other witness. Buchanan v. State, 109 Ala. 7, 19 South. 410 ; Forman v. State, 190 Ala. 22, 67 South. 583. And he may be impeached by inquiry into his general character, and the inquiry is not limited to his reputation for truth and’ veracity. Byers v. State, 105 Ala. 31, 16 South. 716; Mitchell v. State, 94 Ala. 69, 10 South. 518. The only two questions presented by this appeal being free from error, and there being no error in the record, it follows that the judgment of conviction in the lower court must be affirmed.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6983

FRANK BENJAMIN KEARNEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STEPHEN DEWALT, Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution at Petersburg, Virginia,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-98-781-2)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Benjamin Kearney, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anson Rhine,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

July 8, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered

on the docket sheet on July 12, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and

79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that

the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Frank Benjamin Kearney appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Kearney v. Dewalt, No. CA-98-781-2 (E.D. Va. July 12,

1999).* We deny Kearney’s motion for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary and dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50839, 97-50954 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus AUDEN BERNAL CABELLO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-97-CR-73-3

- - - - - - - - - - September 17, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Auden Bernal Cabello appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and the revocation of his supervised release based on his commission of that offense. He argues that the evidence was insufficient because there was no evidence linking him with the marijuana in the white Chevrolet truck. The record was not devoid of evidence of Cabello’s knowledge and his actions in aiding and abetting the offense ofNo. 97-50839, 97-50954 -2- possession with intent to distribute marijuana in conformity with

the lead-car-load-car modus operandi. United States v. Pierre , 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc); United States v. Villareal , 565 F.2d 932, 938 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Jaramillo , 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Cabello’s supervised release. United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Rampart Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 (the "Report"), as
filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, each of I
Charles  W.  Janke,  Chairman  of  the  Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  I  James  H.  Carpenter, Chief Operating Officer of the Company, and I
Charles  F.  Presley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify separately
and  independently,  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,  as  amended;  and

     2.     The  information  contained  in  the  Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.


By:  /s/ C. W. JANKE                                             August 14, 2002
     C. W. Janke
     Chairman of the Board
     Chief Executive Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer)


By:  /s/ J. H. CARPENTER                                         August 14, 2002
     J. H. Carpenter
     President
     Chief Operating Officer


By:  /s/ CHARLES F. PRESLEY                                      August 14, 2002
     Charles F. Presley
     Vice-President
     Chief Financial Officer
     Treasurer
     (Principal Financial Officer)


<PAGE>
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [LLCO956000.L14200000 BJ0000]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        On Friday, February 18, 2011, the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) published a Notice of Stay of Filing of Plat; Colorado in the                         **Federal Register**                         (76 FR 9596) declaring the intent to file certain plats on July 31, 2011. The BLM Colorado State Office is publishing this notice to inform the public that the proposed filing of the plat and field notes of the dependent resurvey and surveys in Township 9 South, Range 93 West, Sixth Principal Meridian, Colorado accepted on August 5, 2010, is hereby postponed in order to extend the period of time for interested parties to communicate with the BLM regarding this proposed filing and to extend the period of time for interested parties to protest this action.                    

# DATES:

Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plat described in this notice will happen on September 30, 2011.

# ADDRESSES:

BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215-7093.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado, (303) 239-3856.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

If a protest of this dependent resurvey is received prior to the date of the official filing, the official filing will be stayed pending consideration of the merits of the protest. This particular plat will not be officially filed until after all protests have been accepted or dismissed and become final.

Randy Bloom,

Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado.

[FR Doc. 2011-20002 Filed 8-5-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

§ 4.112 Contracts to furnish services “in the United States.” ( a ) The Act and the provisions of this part apply to contract services furnished “in the United States,” including any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer Continental Shelf lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, and Johnston Island. The definition expressly excludes any other territory under the jurisdiction of the United States and any United States base or possession within a foreign country. Services to be performed exclusively on a vessel operating in international waters outside the geographic areas named in this paragraph would not be services furnished “in the United States” within the meaning of the Act.
( b ) A service contract to be performed in its entirety outside the geographical limits of the United States as thus defined is not covered and is not subject to the labor standards of the Act. However, if a service contract is to be performed in part within and in part outside these geographic limits, the stipulations required by § 4.6 or § 4.7, as appropriate, must be included in the invitation for bids or negotiation documents and in the contract, and the labor standards must be observed with respect to that part of the contract services that is performed within these geographic limits. In such a case the requirements of the Act and of the contract clauses will not be applicable to the services furnished outside the United States.
[61 FR 68664, Dec. 30, 1996]
§ 2700.7 Service. ( a ) *Generally.* A copy of each document filed with the Commission shall be served on all parties. Whenever a party is represented by an attorney or other authorized representative who has entered an appearance on behalf of such party pursuant to § 2700.3, service thereafter shall be made upon the attorney or other authorized representative. In addition, a copy of a notice of contest of a citation or order, a petition for assessment of penalty, a discrimination complaint, a complaint for compensation, and an application for temporary relief shall be served upon the representative of miners, if known.
( b ) *Posting.* A copy of an order, citation, notice, or decision required under section 109 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 819, to be posted on a mine bulletin board shall, upon receipt, be immediately posted on such bulletin board by the operator.
( c ) *Manner of service.* Unless otherwise provided for in the Act, these rules, or by order: ( 1 ) *Methods of service.* Documents may be served in person, by U.S. Postal Service, by third-party commercial carrier, by facsimile transmission, or by electronic transmission (email). For documents filed pursuant to §§ 2700.9(a), 2700.24, 2700.45, 2700.70(f), 2700.75(f), and subpart F (applications for temporary relief), the method of service used must be no less expeditious than that used for filing, except that if service by electronic transmission (email) is impossible, the filing party must serve in person, by third party commercial carrier, or facsimile transmission, resulting in same-day delivery.
( 2 ) *Effective date of service.* When service is by U.S. Postal service, service is effective upon mailing. When service is in person, by third-party commercial carrier, by facsimile transmission, or by electronic transmission (email), service is effective upon successful receipt by the party intended to be served.
( d ) *Proof of service.* All pleadings and other filed documents shall be accompanied by a certification setting forth the date, method of service, and all contact information used.
[78 FR 77357, Dec. 23, 2013]
§ 510.21 SIC codes. ( a ) The Conference Report specifically cites Puerto Rico's annual Census of Manufacturing Industries as a source of average hourly wage data by industry. Industries in that census are organized by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), the statistical classification system used for a variety of governmental and statistical purposes. With respect to non-manufacturing industries, or other industries not included in the Census of Manufacturing, the Conference Report stated that data “should be at a level of specificity comparable to the four digit Standard Industry Code (SIC) code level.”
( b ) The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes listed in appendix A and B herein are designated in accordance with the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual, 1987, published by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies may be inspected at all federal depository libraries in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; at the district office of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, New San Juan Office Building, 159 Chardon St., room 102, Hato Rey, PR 00918; at the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Labor and Human Resources, Prudencio Rivera Building, Munoz Rivera Avenue 505, Mato Rey, PR 00918; or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .* Establishments are classified according to their primary activity. The classification structure classifies industries by: ( 1 ) Two-digit major group,
( 2 ) Three digit industry group, or
( 3 ) Four-digit industry code, according to the level of industrial detail which may be required.
Each operating establishment is assigned an industry code on the basis of its primary activity, which is determined by its principal product or group of products produced or distributed, or services rendered. [55 FR 12120, Mar. 30, 1990; 55 FR 12778, Apr. 5, 1990, as amended at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004]
(78 South. 990)

#### BATSON v. DORTCH.

(6 Div. 441.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 18, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge.

James Barton, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-04-00622- CV
Ican Enterprise, Inc. d/b/ a Ican Aviation, Michael Zucker , P resident,

and Naomi Z ucker, Vice P resident, Appellants

v. Williamson County App raisal Review Board, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WILLI AMSO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 03-9 72- C368, H ONO RAB LE BURT CARNES, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Appellants M i chae l Z ucker and Na omi Zuc ker a

re pr esident and vic e-pr esident of I c an E nte rp ri se , Inc ., d/b /a I c an A viatio n. Th e y

so ught t o r e pr e se nt th e c or po ratio n in

thi s su it ag ainst app ellee Williamson Count y Appra isal Review B oard. O n J uly 26, 2004, the trial cour

t made
an ora l d et er m i n at i on that the Z ucker s, neither of whom is an attorney , could not repr esent the corpor ation. Acc ordingto the cler k of the trial c ourt, no written orde r wa s signe d or is expected. Appellate timetable s do not be g in to run “other than by signe d, written orde r, eve n when the signing of

such an or der is pure ly

minist eria l.” Farmer v. Ben E. Keith Co. , 907 S.W .2d 49 5 , 4 9 6 (Tex. 1995). Wit hout such a doc ument, there is no order or judgme nt that is final and appea lable. Pa rk Plac e Ho sp . v . E sta teof M

ilo , 909 S.W .2d 508, 510 (Tex. 1995). The tria l court made only

an ora l pronounce ment in this case. Appe llants lack an or der from which to appe al, and there fore this Court l acks jurisdiction to enter tain the appe al. Fur

thermore , even if

there wer e a2

written orde r on the issue, the trial court’ s determination wa s not a final dec ision in t he ca se, but rathe r was an int erloc utory decision and is not of a kind fr om which appe al may be take n. See T e x. Civ. P rac . & Re m. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2004-05) (listing allowa ble interlocutory
a pp e a ls and pr ov idi ng fo r int e rl oc uto ry a pp e a l up on a g re e me nt by part ie s) ; Sta ry

v . D e Bo rd, 967 S.W. 2d 35 2, 35 2- 53 (T e x. 19 98 ) ( “ Ap pe llate c ourt s h ave jur isd ic tio n to c on sid e r i mme diate a pp e a ls of int e rl oc uto ry

or de rs on ly

if a statut e e xplic itl y

pr ov i d e s a

p pe llate jur isd ic tio n. ” ); see also Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. C o d e Ann. §§ 15.003(b) (West Supp. 2004-05) (interloc utory appea l from venue deter minations), 171.098 (West Supp. 2004-05) (interlocutory ap peal f rom some deter

minations related to arbitration); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 1205.068, .105 (West 2000) (interlocutory appea l from dec isions related to bonds); Tex. R. C i v . P
. 76a(8) (interlocutor y appea l from the sea ling or unsealingof docume nts).

The trial court’s decision is not one from which int erloc utory appea l is permitted, and further there is no signed, written order from which appea l may be take n. We theref

ore dismiss the appea l for wa

nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3.

David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

12, 2005
§ 1988.101 Definitions. As used in this part: *Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health or the person or persons to whom he or she delegates authority under MAP-21.
*Business days* means days other than Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
*Complainant* means the person who filed a MAP-21 complaint or on whose behalf a complaint was filed.
Dealer or Dealership means a person selling and distributing new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment primarily to purchasers that in good faith purchase the vehicles or equipment other than for resale.
*Defect* includes any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.
*Employee* means an individual presently or formerly working for, an individual applying to work for, or an individual whose employment could be affected by a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, part supplier, or dealership.
*Manufacturer* means a person: ( 1 ) Manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment; or
( 2 ) Importing motor vehicles or motor vehicles equipment for resale.
*MAP-21* means Section 31307 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 765 (July 6, 2012) (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30171).
*Motor vehicle* means a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.
*Motor vehicle equipment* means— ( 1 ) Any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured;
( 2 ) Any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle; or
( 3 ) Any device or an article or apparel, including a motorcycle helmet and excluding medicine or eyeglasses prescribed by a licensed practitioner, that— ( i ) Is not a system, part or component of a motor vehicle; and
( ii ) Is manufactured, sold, delivered, or offered to be sold for use on public streets, roads, and highways with the apparent purpose of safeguarding users of motor vehicles against risk of accident, injury, or death.
*NHTSA* means the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the United States Department of Transportation.
*OSHA* means the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the United States Department of Labor.
*Person* means an individual, partnership, company, corporation, association (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, estate, cooperative organization, or other entity.
*Respondent* means the person named in the complaint who is alleged to have violated MAP-21.
*Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor.