alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(79 South. 196)

#### STONER v. STATE.

(7 Div. 515.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

June 4, 1918.)

1. Homicide <&wkey;163(2) — Evidence—Character of Deceased.

In prosecution for murder, defended on the ground that accused was attempting to arrest deceased for an assault to rape his sister, evidence of deceased’s general character in any respect was not admissible.

2. Homicide <&wkey;163(2) — Evidence—Admissibility.

In prosecution for murder, the fact that a prosecution was pending against deceased for an assault to rape accused’s sister, was immaterial.

3. Criminal Law &wkey;448(10) — Evidence — Conclusions of Witnesses.

Question whether deceased seemed to have certain things on his mind was objectionable, as calling for a conclusion of a witness.

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W. W. I-Iaralson, Judge.

Curtis Stoner was convicted of murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Hunt & Wolfes, of Et. Payne, for appellant. E. Loyd Tate, Atty.' Gen., and Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROW¡N, P. J.

[1] There is no evidence showing or tending to show that the killing involved in this case was done in the resistance of force attempted or threatened by the deceased against the life or person of the defendant or his sister. The sole theory of the defense interposed was that Goodwin was shot by the defendant in an attempt to arrest him for a felony committed, an assault with intent to rape defendant’s sister, and at the time the fatal shot was fired, the deceased was fleeing from the scene of the alleged crime, and from the defendant. There is therefore no predicate to jutify the introduction of evidence of the deceased’s general character in any respect. Wigmore’s Evidence, § 246; Green v. State, 143 Ala. 2, 39 South. 362; Sims v. State, 139 Ala. 74, 36 South. 138, 101 Am. St. Rep. 17; Rodgers v. State, 144 Ala. 32, 40 South. 572.

The testimony of the witness De Jarnette showed that he had no personal knowledge as to where the defendant was standing when he fired on the deceased, and the ruling of the court on the solicitor’s objection to the statement of this witness, to wit, “that the distance from where the track showed where Stoner was standing was about 20 yards from the spring path going across the path from the hog pen,” was free from error.

[2,3] The fact that a prosecution was pending against the deceased for an assault with intent to rape was clearly immaterial to the issues in this case. The question to the witness Crane “if Goodwin seemed to have things of that sort on his mind” called for a conclusion of the witness and was otherwise objectionable.

This disposes of all the questions presented on this appeal.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129997 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129997 COA: 256613 Wayne CC: 03-013861-01 CHARLES TERRELL JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KERIT LAMAR JOHNSON, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-70720 

Agency No. A205-311-853 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2019**

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Kerit Lamar Johnson, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal 

proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-70720 

§ 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. 

Arredondo v. Lynch, 824 F.3d 801, 805 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and 

dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion to 

reopen as untimely where it was filed seven months after the IJ’s order of removal 

and Johnson failed to show that he did not fail to appear at his final removal 

hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (in absentia removal order “may be 

rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the 

order of removal, if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of 

exceptional circumstances”); see also Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 774 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (“a petitioner who arrives late for his immigration hearing, but while the 

IJ is still in the courtroom, has not failed to appear for that hearing”).

To the extent Johnson contends his motion to reopen was timely filed 

because he sent a request for a new hearing to the BIA in April 2016, we lack 

jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted contention. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 

1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not 

raised before the agency).

We do not consider the extra-record evidence that Johnson submitted for the 

first time with his opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A); Dent v. Holder, 

627 F.3d 365, 371 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard for review of out-of-record 
3 17-70720 

evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                             GENCOR INDUSTRIES, INC.

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
           (All Dollar Amounts in Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                           Year Ended             Year Ended             Year Ended
                                                          September 30,          September 30,          September 30,
                                                              1998                   1997                   1996
                                                              ----                   ----                   ----
<S>                                                       <C>                    <C>                    <C>    
Basic earnings per share
------------------------
Net income                                                $    15,082            $     6,896            $      2,756
                                                          ===========            ===========            ============
Average number of shares outstanding                        8,346,547              8,094,268               7,120,636
                                                          ===========            ===========            ============
Net income per share - basic                              $      1.81            $      0.85            $       0.39
                                                          ===========            ===========            ============

Diluted earnings per share
--------------------------

Average number of shares outstanding                        8,346,547              8,094,268               7,120,636
Add dilutive effect of outstanding options
  (as determined by the application of the
  treasury stock method)                                    1,564,177              1,232,058                  42,446
                                                          -----------            -----------            ------------
Average number of shares outstanding,
  as adjusted                                               9,910,724              9,326,326               7,163,082
                                                          ===========            ===========            ============
  Net income per share - diluted                          $      1.52            $      0.74            $       0.38
                                                          ===========            ===========            ============
</TABLE> 

                                      21
|          |                  |                      |        |                      |
|----------|------------------|----------------------|--------|----------------------|
| EMPLOYEE |             | MEREDITH CORPORATION |
|     |             |                 |   |                 |
| By:      | /s/ Jack Griffin |                 | By:    | /s/ Scott A. Rundall |
|     | Jack Griffin     |                 |   | Scott A. Rundall     |
|     |             |                 |   |                 |
| Date:    | August 1, 2010   |                 | Date:  | August 1, 2010       |
|     |             |                 |   |                 |
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1138** 

THOMAS L. SWITZER , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.

JUDITH WEAVER , Defendant

– Appellee , and

FELICIA HOUSDEN , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg

. Michael F . Urbanski , District Judge. ( 5:12

- cv
- 00057

- MFU

- JGW )

Submitted : May 23, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013

Before MOTZ * and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

* Judge Motz did not participate in the consideration of the this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (200 6 ).2 Thomas L. Switzer, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Griggs, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Thomas L. Switzer appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Switzer v.

Weaver , No. 5:12

- cv
- 00057

- MFU

- JGW (W.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.809 Tonawanda Creek.

The draw of the Penn Central Corporation railroad bridge, mile 0.1 at Tonawanda, is permanently maintained in the open position.
F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 22, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 04- 1504 3

________________________ D. C. Docket N o. 04-0072 CR-OR L- 31-KRS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nti ff -A ppe lla nt, ve rs us VERN SHELTON , De fendant-Appellee.

________________________ A ppe al f ro m the U nit ed S ta te s D ist ri ct Co ur t fo r the Mi ddl e D ist ri ct

of F lor ida

_________________________ (M ar ch 22, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , D U BI N A a nd H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A ft er a f ull a nd s upe rb or al a rg um en t, a nd c ar ef ul c onsi de ra tio n, a nd i n li ght2

of th e v ery si m il ar p rece de nt of Un it ed Sta te s v . W il li am s, 4 35 F.3d 13 50 (11 Cir . th 2006 ), w e re ad ily c onc lud e tha t t he c onvi ct ion a nd s en te nc e ar e due to be af fi rm ed . AFFIR MED.
**~~\~£O sr-<4,..~**  .**~~** s...... s •• "'G**~"a** \«'1tr-i**'\~~** c**PRO,~G** UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901 April 20, 2009 I Michael H. Scheible Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Post Office Box 2815Sacramento, CA 95812 Dear Mr. Scheible: On March 17,2009, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. APCD/AQMD Rule# Rule Title Placer County 231 Industrial, Institutional, Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters San Joaquin Valley 1020 Definitions San Joaquin Valley 2201 New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule San Joaquin Valley 2530 Federally Enforceable Potential to Emit San Joaquin Valley 4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters- Phase 3 San Joaquin Valley 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 2.0 MMBtu/Hr to 5.0 MMBtu/Hr San Joaquin Valley 4320 Advanced Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters Greater than 5.0 MMB tu/Hr San Joaquin Valley 4607 Graphic Arts and Paper, Film, Foil and Fabric Coatings Santa Barbara County 102 Definitions Santa Barbara County 316 Storage and Transfer of Gasoline South Coast 223 Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities South Coast 1145 Plastic, Rubber, Leather, and Glass Coatings Ventura County 74.18 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations Yolo-Solano 3.21 Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits This addresses all revisions in this submittal. Inthe coming months we will review the complete revisions for action pursuant toClean Air Act section 11 O(k). Printed on Recycled Paper

•2 Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G.Allenat (415) 947-4120. Sincerely,**Htl1V'j~~** 1\**r5d~or~h** Jordan r Director, Air Division Cc: Mr. Thomas J. Christofk, APCO Placer County APCD Mr. Seyed Sadredin, APCO San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD Mr. Terry Dressler, APCO Santa Barbara County APCD Dr. Barry Wallerstein Executive Officer South Coast AQMD Mr. Mike Villegas, APCO Ventura County APCD Mr. Matt Enrhardt, APCO Yolo-Solano AQMD Mr. JorgeL. Fernandez, Chief Program Evaluation Branch, CARB
Exhibit 31.2



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION





I, Thomas G. Milne, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report of China Energy Ventures Corp.



2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



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



4.  The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.  The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.





|Date:  May 21, 2004 | By: | /s/ Thomas MilneName:   Thomas Milne
Title:  Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
|------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANK C. CARSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; STEVE

JACOBSEN, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-17392

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-02133-OWWSMS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 14, 2013

San Francisco, California

FILED

JUN 25 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
** The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District

Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

2

Before: O’SCANNLAIN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,

District Judge.** 

We have jurisdiction to review Carson’s First Amendment claim, which was

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, even though Carson did not

reallege that claim in his first amended complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County,

693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court did not err in dismissing the

federal claims set forth in Carson’s original and first amended complaint because

neither complaint satisfied the pleading standards set forth in Bell Atlantic

Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Carson alleged insufficient facts to support the inference

that Jacobsen acted under color of state law. See Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d

1063, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2006). Jacobsen’s status as a peace officer at the time of

the alleged incident does not automatically render his conduct state action. See

Gritchen v. Collier, 254 F.3d 807, 812-13 (9th. Cir. 2001). The district court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing Carson’s federal claims without further leave

to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Kendall v. Visa U.S.A.,

Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). After two attempts, Carson failed to
3

allege facts supporting the inference that Jacobsen acted under color of law. See

id. at 1051-52. 

AFFIRMED.
TS

– 11KK4D , Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, FTIR Trace

Reacted
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 563 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 745
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 563

    Designating September 13, 2008, as ``National Childhood Cancer 
                            Awareness Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 2008

   Mr. Allard (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                              May 22, 2008

                Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating September 13, 2008, as ``National Childhood Cancer 
                            Awareness Day''.

Whereas more than 10,000 children under the age of 15 in the United States are 
        diagnosed with cancer annually;
Whereas every year more than 1,400 children under the age of 15 in the United 
        States lose their lives to cancer;
Whereas childhood cancer is the number one disease killer and the second overall 
        leading cause of death of children in the United States;
Whereas 1 in every 330 children under the age of 20 will develop cancer, and 1 
        in every 640 adults aged 20 to 39 has a history of cancer;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for children with cancer has increased from 56 
        percent in 1974 to 79 percent in 2000, representing significant 
        improvement from previous decades; and
Whereas cancer occurs regularly and randomly and spares no racial or ethnic 
        group, socioeconomic class, or geographic region: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Congress--
            (1) designates September 13, 2008, as ``National Childhood 
        Cancer Awareness Day'';
            (2) requests that the Federal Government, States, 
        localities, and nonprofit organizations observe the day with 
        appropriate programs and activities, with the goal of 
        increasing public knowledge of the risks of cancer; and
            (3) recognizes the human toll of cancer and pledges to make 
        its prevention and cure a public health priority.

                                                       Calendar No. 745

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              S. RES. 563

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Designating September 13, 2008, as ``National Childhood Cancer 
                            Awareness Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 22, 2008

                       Reported without amendment
```
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.588 Bass River. The Hall Whitaker Bridge, mile 0.6 at Beverly, shall operate as follows: ( a ) Public vessels of the United States must be passed as soon as possible.
( b ) The owners of this bridge shall provide and keep in good legible condition clearance gauges for each draw with figures not less than 12 inches high designed, installed and maintained according to the provisions of § 118.160 of this chapter.
( c ) That the drawspan for the Hall Whitaker Drawbridge must open on signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
[CGD1-91-015, 56 FR 41460, Aug. 21, 1991, as amended by USCG-2001-10881, 71 FR 70311, Dec. 4, 2006]
- Contents
- Forward
- Geographic, Demographic, and Socioeconomic Background
- Stillbirth and Infant Mortality, 1900-1962
- Summary
- Detailed Tables
- Appendix I. Legal Provisions for Family Welfare
- Appendix II. System of Birth and Death Registration
#### § 95.1 Purpose.

This part establishes uniform administrative requirements for Federal grants and agreements awarded to institutions of higher education, hospitals, other non-profit organizations, commercial organizations, foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, and international organizations. DOL shall not impose additional or inconsistent requirements, except as provided in §§ 95.4 and 95.14 or unless specifically required by Federal statute or executive order. Non-profit and commercial organizations that implement Federal programs for the States are also subject to State requirements.