alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Frost and Hays *vs*Commonwealth.

Appeal prom the Owsley Circuit.

*Presentment. Jury trial. Evidence.*

Presentment. *■Case*77.

*June*5.

'Caso stated.

A defendant has no right to demand a trial by jury in a penal case unless the fine upon conviction exceeds £5, or is uncertain.

Upon a joint presentment for adultery, the ad* *363missions of one nagafnst the

*362Judge Geaham

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The plaintiffs in error, were presented by the Grand Jury, on a charge of having been guilty of adultery,

Upon pleading not guilty, they moved the Court for a trial of the facts by a jury. Their motion was overruled, and on hearing the evidence, the Judge imposed on each defendant a fine of five pounds.

It is insisted that the Court erred in overruling said ■motion- — -that the proof did not authorize the judgment, and that a new trial was improperly refused.

The law regulating proceedings in criminal and penal cases, secures to the accused the right of having the facts tried by a jury, and the amount of fine to be assessed by them, in cases where the fine to be imposed on the offending party is uncertain in amount, or exceeds five pounds. In other cases, upon the establishment of the defendant’s guilt, the Judge may assess the fine, without the aid or intervention of a jury.

The testimony fully sustained the charge of cohabitation. The witness proved that Frost had admitted that Hays was not his wife, and that he had then living a wife in Tennessee. He was very properly subjected to the penalty imposed by law on such offenders. The Court could not have done otherwise, under the proof.

Generally, the admissions of one party cannot be received in evidence against another. There is nothing in this case to make - the defendant, Hays, an exception *363to this general rule. There is no proof in the record, by confession or otherwise, that she was a married woman. There was no evidence, save his own admissions, that Frost was not a single man. His statements could not legitimately be used as evidence against her. As to said Hays, there was therefore no proof sufficient to justify the Court in subjecting her to a fine of five pounds.

*Barnes*for appellants; *Johnson, Attorney*General„ for Commonwealth.

.Wherefore, it is considered that the judgment as to said Frost be affirmed, and as to said Hays, it is. reversed and remanded, with directions to the Court below to award her a new trial.
RECEIVED UPS

DEC 12011 Perm ,..aiceAir-3 November 29, 2011

U.S. EPA, Regor

9 Mr. Gerardo Rios Chief, Permits Office USEPA Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 SUBJECT: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT,
PlO PICO ENERGY CENTER, OTAY MESA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DearMr. Rios: Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC. (Applicant)

is providing the enclosed Biological Assessment
for the Pio Pico Energy Center Project (Project) located
in Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California. The Project isa proposed simple-cycle power generation project that consists
of three General Electric LMS100 natural gas-fired combustion turbine generators,emissions control systems,and other associated equipment. Based onfield studies, consultation with experts,and consultation with resource specialists, URS biologists have determined that U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated critical habitat for Federally-listed Otay Tarplant, Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and Coastal California Gnatcatcher occur approximately 1,500 feet (ft)tothe eastofthe project footprint, and that nitrogen deposition resulting from the Project mayresult
in acumulative minor increase

in nitrogen concentrations. The cumulative increase

in nitrogen concentrations mayincrease the propagation

of non-native invasive plant species and the alteration
of native vegetation communities. The cumulative incremental increase

in nitrogen emissions from the Project mayaffect approximately

50 acresof native habitat suitable for Otay Tarplant, Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, and Coastal California Gnatcatcher, butis not likely to adversely affect these species or designated critical habitat for these species. On behalf ofthe Applicant, we appreciate your timely review of the enclosed Biological Assessment. Further,

itis our understanding that EPAwill forward this document

toUSFWS and initiate formal Section

7 consultation. Please let meknow when youhave forwarded the document
sothat

I may follow up directly with USFWS.

If youhave any questions regarding the Biological Assessment, please contactmeat714-648-2824

orlincoln.hulse@urs.com Sincerely, Lincoln HulseNatural Resources Division Manager URS Corporation 2020 East1St Street, Suite 400 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Phone 714-648-2824 CC: Gary Chandler, Plo Pico Energy Center, LLC David Jenkins, Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC Maggie Fitzgerald, URS Corporation Enclosure: Biological Assessment
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

**ORDER**

Case number:		01-12-00914-CR

Style:		In re Johnny Mack Brown

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus from *The State of Texas v. Johnny Mack Brown*, No. 129800301010 in the 209th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon. J. Michael Wilkinson, presiding.

	On October 1, 2012, relator, Johnny Mack Brown, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking review of the trial court’s July 6, 2012 order denying relator’s motion for a nunc pro tunc judgment to correct an alleged clerical time credit error.  

	The Court further requests a response from the real party in interest.  The response, if any, is due **Wednesday, October 31, 2012.**

	It is so **ORDERED**.

Judge’s signature:  /s/ Sherry Radack       

Acting individually

Date:  10/09/12

# image1.png

# image10.png
EXHIBIT


31.1





CERTIFICATIONS





I, George R. Lefevre, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MotivNation Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010.





2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by the quarterly report; and





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





4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the quarterly report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in the quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by the quarterly report based on such evaluation; and





c) disclosed in the quarterly report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;





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





a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





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





/s/ George Lefevre




Dated:  October 18, 2010                                                                               By: _________________


George R. Lefevre CEO
§ 183.105 Quantity of flotation required. ( a ) Each boat must have enough flotation to keep any portion of the boat above the surface of the water when the boat has been submerged in calm, fresh water for at least 18 hours and loaded with: ( 1 ) A weight that, when submerged, equals two-fifteenths of the persons capacity marked on the boat;
( 2 ) A weight that, when submerged, equals 25 percent of the dead weight; and
( 3 ) A weight in pounds that, when submerged, equals 62.4 times the volume in cubic feet of the two largest air chambers, if air chambers are used for flotation.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, “dead weight” means the maximum weight capacity marked on the boat minus the persons capacity marked on the boat.
Travel by Metro: Green and Yellow Line - L'Enfant Plaza station (exit to 

Maryland Avenue) OR Orange and Blue Line - Smithsonian station (exit to 

Holocaust Museum/Bureau of Engraving and Printing). 

 

 -

ADR LUNCHTIME SERIES PRESENTATION
 

Facilitation AnalyticsTM: Tools to Help You Unpack, Analyze, and
 

Navigate Conflict
 

Have you ever been frustrated when the parties won't get to the point? Ignore the obvious

solutions? Just don't seem to understand what the other is saying? When the same types of 

conflicts continue to occur? In this program an experienced mediator and lawyer will share 

frameworks and metrics that can help you analyze and resolve conflicts more efficiently and

effectively, and even help to prevent future conflicts. Conflicts - particularly complex conflicts -

- occur within systems and relationships and are filtered through an individual's past

experiences and understandings. Learning how to identify where these factors intersect and

how they influence communication will help you to more effectively interpret and translate 

between the parties and help them to chart a path to resolution. Specific examples of how to 

use the tools presented will be integrated throughout the presentation. 

Speaker:	 Sarah Read 

President, The Communications Center, Inc. 

Presented by the Interagency ADR Working Group’s Workplace Conflict 

Management Section, in coordination with the Department of Energy’s 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Office 

Date:	 Wednesday, July 26, 2017 

Time:	 Noon - 1:30 pm EDT (Please allow extra time for security procedures) 

Location: U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave, SW, Room GE-086 

(DOE Forrestal Main Auditorium) 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

If you plan to attend in person and you need any special accommodations, or if you plan to attend this 

training online and you need any special accommodations, please contact cindy.mazur@fema.dhs.gov 

no later than June 30, 2017. 

To attend in person, everyone, including federal employees with an HSPD-12 government ID badge, 

must register by email to cindy.mazur@fema.dhs.gov and provide 1) name, 2) citizenship, and 3) 

agency/employer by July 17, 2017. You do not need to register to call-in or participate online. 

To attend via WebEx, Go to www.webex.com then click “Join.” Enter the Meeting Number 999 088 

360, your first and last name and your email address. Enter Adr1234 as the event password. Click 

“Join” and follow instructions for the audio (select the “I will call in” option for better reception). 

To listen only via teleconference, please call 1-650-479-3208 and use access code: 999 088 360. Please 

disregard the prompt for an Attendee ID by pressing # sign. To submit questions to the speaker during 

the program, please use online chat or email elisabeth.bissell@fema.dhs.gov. Materials for this 

presentation will be posted at http://www.adr.gov/events.html several days before the program.
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36284, June 25, 2010.

§ 148.730 What are the land use and coastal zone management criteria? In accordance with § 148.715(b) of this part, the deepwater port proposal and reasonable alternatives will be evaluated on the basis of how well they: ( a ) Accord with existing and planned land use, including management of the coastal region, for which purpose the proposal must be accompanied by a consistency determination from appropriate State agencies for any designated Adjacent Coastal State;
( b ) Adhere to proposed local and State master plans;
( c ) Minimize the need for special exceptions, zoning variances, or non-conforming uses;
( d ) Plan flood plain uses in ways that will minimize wetlands loss, flood damage, the need for federally-funded flood protection or flood relief, or any decrease in the public value of the flood plain as an environmental resource; and
( e ) Avoid permanent alteration or harm to wetlands, and take positive steps to minimize adverse effects on wetlands.
[USCG-1998-3884, 71 FR 57651, Sept. 29, 2006, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39178, July 1, 2013]
Guam Thinks Out of the Box, Delivers Bags of Produce to Older Adults 

The Senior Nutrition Program of the Older Americans Act is a unique federal program for older adults. It

offers nutritious meals, social opportunities of companionship and volunteerism, and a range of other 

services that allow older adults to remain healthy and independent at home in their communities. The 

COVID-19 pandemic called for flexible service provision to ensure access to nutritious, adequate, safe food 

for older adults. Working with partners has been critical. Below is one example from the network. 

In June 2020, Guam’s State Office on Aging (GSOA) began searching for ways 

to supply healthy food options to seniors at home. The outcome, made 

possible by CARES Act funding, is now the “Mixed Local Produce Bag Initiative.” 

First, the Farmers’ Cooperative Association of Guam (Co-op) put together $25

bags of local vegetables and fruits. Then, GSOA 

connected with the University of Guam’s Cooperative Extension & Outreach

(CE&O), part of the territory-wide Cooperative Extension System. CE&O 

advises farmers on promoting their local produce in hotels, restaurants, 

supermarkets, and village stores. Since things are different during a pandemic 

and places like hotels have minimal visitors, CE&O is helping the Co-op to be 

creative with their markets. 

This market creativity means getting meals to older adults at home and 

offering drive-thru options. Produce bags are distributed to southern, central, and northern parts of

territory through GSOA partnerships with senior centers, adult day centers, and transportation providers. 

Community members who are homebound can receive produce via delivery by nutrition program workers 

who deliver not only food but in-home services like case management. 

The Mixed Local Produce Bag Initiative is a win-win-win in Guam. Older adults 

and caregivers safely receive fresh fruits and vegetables, making their meals more 

nutritious. The Farmers’ Co-op receives needed GSOA support during a time 

when some of the territory’s top revenue-driving industries, like hospitality, 

dwindle. And it’s a win for the University of Guam, which can promote its services 

and initiatives to aging community members.
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 Annual Report of 12 to 20 Plus,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Carol  Slavin,
President  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:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.



/s/Carol Slavin
------------------------
Carol Slavin
President

April 14, 2004
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 Annual Report of Unity Wireless Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ilan Kenig, the President and Chief Executive Officer 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 my 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 result of operations of the Company.

Ilan Kenig

/s/ Ilan Kenig
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)

April 2, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Edward T. Colligan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Palm, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended June 3, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report
on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Palm, Inc. By:
    
    /s/ Edward T. ColliganName:
    
    Edward T. ColliganTitle:
    
    President and Chief Executive Officer
 I, Andrew J. Brown, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Palm, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended June 3, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report
on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Palm, Inc. By:
    
    /s/ Andrew J. BrownName:
    
    Andrew J. BrownTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0655

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER P. MCKEEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Counsel’s motion to withdraw and good cause 

appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant in this matter shall file 

a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The 

response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney 

General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender’s Office.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel provide Appellant upon his

written request with a copy of the relevant record and transcripts on appeal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice 

of this Order by mail to all counsel of record and to the Appellant at his last 

known address.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 28 2024

03/28/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0655
Argued and submitted March 31,

convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing September 30, 1992

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ERIC EDWARD EVANS, *Appellant.*

(CF90-0491; CA A68267)

838 P2d 1086

Irene B. Taylor, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*393PER CURIAM

After a trial to the court, defendant was convicted of two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and two counts of burglary in the first degree. ORS 163.435; ORS 164.225. The trial court refused to apply the sentencing guidelines, because he believed that they violate the Oregon Constitution. He sentenced defendant to 10 years imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of 2 years.

The state concedes that the trial court erred in failing to apply the guidelines, *see State v. Spinney,*109 Or App 573, 820 P2d 854 (1991); *see also State v. Christman,*115 Or App 364, 838 P2d 1087 (1992), but argues that we should not reach the question, because defendant did not preserve it. Defendant did not timely object, but the error is apparent on the face of the record and we review it pursuant to ORS 138.222. ORAP 5.45(2); *State v. Brown,*310 Or 347, 355, 800 P2d 259 (1990).

We accept the state’s concession that the sentencing was in error.

Convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000002589
<NAME> AERO SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              66
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,329
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,266
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,848
<PP&E>                                          14,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,193
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,527
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           880
<OTHER-SE>                                         900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,193
<SALES>                                         15,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,111
<CGS>                                           13,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    14
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (930)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>