alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry Orchard v. G. D. Osborn.

ObiminaIí Case — *Void Judgment for Costs against Prosecuting Witness.*A justice of the peace has no power in a criminal case to render a judgment against the prosecuting witness for costs, unless a finding has first been made that the prosecution has been instituted by the prosecuting witness without probable cause, or without reasonable grounds, or from malicious motives.

*Error from Marshall District Court.*

The opinion states the case.

*John V. Coon,*and *8. D. McKee,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. J. Qregg,*and *E. A. Berry,*for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Valentine, J.:

On February 28, 1887, Henry Orchard, as prosecuting witness, commenced a criminal action before a justice of the peace of Marshall county against Fred Martin, charging Martin with unlawfully committing an assault and battery upon Orchard. Afterward a trial was had before the justice of the peace and a jury, and the jury failing to agree, they were discharged. Afterward another trial was had before the justice and a jury, and the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant, Fred Martin, not guilty, and the defendant was discharged; and without any other or further finding by either the justice of the peace or the jury, the justice rendered a judgment against Orchard for the costs of suit. Afterward the justice issued an execution against the property of Orchard, and placed the same in the hands of G. D. Osborn, a constable of the township, for collection, and Osborn as such constable levied such execution upon certain property belonging to Orchard; and Orchard then commenced this action in the district court against Osborn to enjoin and restrain Osborn from collecting or enforcing such execution, and also for damages. The action was commenced upon the theory that the aforesaid judgment of the justice of the peace was absolutely *77void, and of no effect. A trial was had in the district court, before the court without a jury, and the court upon the aforesaid facts rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff; and the plaintiff, as plaintiff in error, brings the case to this court for review.

Upon the authority of the decisions made by this court in the cases of *Little v. Evans,*41 Kas. 578, same case, 21 Pac. Rep. 630, and *Foss v.*Jones, just decided, the judgment of the court below will be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

All the Justices concurring.
Secure File Transfer

files@sendthisfile.com <files@sendthisfile.com>

Fri 6/23/23 927 AM

To:Nicholas Warren <NWarren@aclufl.org>

Sender: christopher.johnson@gray-robinson.com

Upload Date: 2023-06-23 08:27:46.0

Message: Nick, attached is the presentations and the txt files for all plans presented. They can be imported as csv files (they are

comma delimited). There are no 1 through 14. They are labeled as labeled in the presentations. The proposed plan was referred to

sometimes as “12” and D1 plan may have been referred to as “14.” I would appreciate a copy of the transcript when you have it.

Click the following link to download your file(s).

Click to Retrieve File(s)

D3 altv2.txt

Presentation2.pptx

d1 alt.txt

d2 alt.txt

d3 alt.txt

d3 altv3.txt

d5 alt.txt

final.txt

presentation .pptx

proposed plan.txt

If the above link is not clickable, copy and paste the following URL into your browser.

https://www.sendthisfile.com/DBBoEr9RghsgeTTODnDAfkti

Note: These files will expire in 14 days from the time this email was generated.

Powered by www.SendThisFile.com

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,979
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             792
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    119,799
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,742
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,761
<LOANS>                                        142,623
<ALLOWANCE>                                        756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,320
<DEPOSITS>                                     144,802
<SHORT-TERM>                                    39,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,503
<LONG-TERM>                                     26,451
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 275,320
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,795
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,476
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   336
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,607
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,573
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,034
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      235
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,651
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,868
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,868
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,051
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .760
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .720
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   6.780
<LOANS-NON>                                        831
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    175
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   590
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       69
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  756
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            756


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3732-3733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1606]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-930-1310-01]; [NMNM 101077]


New Mexico: Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease

    Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 101077 for lands in Eddy 
County, New Mexico, was timely filed and was accompanied by all 
required rentals and royalties accruing from September 1, 1999, the 
date of termination.

[[Page 3733]]

    No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has 
agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 
per acre or fraction thereof and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The 
lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and has reimbursed 
the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The Lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing 
Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is 
proposing to reinstate the lease effective September 1, 1999, subject 
to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased 
rental and royalty rates cited above.
    For further information contact: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico 
State Office, (505) 438-7586.

    Dated: December 29, 1999.
Lourdes B. Ortiz,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. 00-1606 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M
595 P.2d 1097

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James EHRMANTROUT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12790.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 7, 1979.

Stephen B. McCrea, Coeur d’Alene, for defendant-appellant.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before SHEPARD, C. J., and McFADDEN, DONALDSON, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant appellant brings this appeal from a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery. I.C. § 18-6501. The only issue raised on appeal concerns a jury instruction on the criminal liability of an accomplice. We affirm.

The defendant, his younger brother Wesley Ehrmantrout, and a friend, Walter Scheutz, were charged with robbing Stephen Godfrey of his wallet which contained approximately $940. Scheutz pleaded guilty to robbery and Wesley Ehrmantrout pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact. The defendant, also charged with robbery, pleaded not guilty. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the crime charged.

The district court instructed the jury to the effect that the criminal liability of an accomplice extends to crimes committed by his confederate which are the natural and probable consequence of the crime as originally planned. The defendant contends that such instruction misstated the law, contradicted other instructions, and lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof. We conclude that the trial court’s instruction was not erroneous. *See United States v. Jones,*170 U.S.App.D.C. 362, 517 F.2d 176 (1975); *State v. Shon,*385 P.2d 830 (Haw.1963); 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law, § 35 at 181 (14th ed. C.Torcia, 1978). *See also State v. Gerhardt,*97 Idaho 603, 549 P.2d 262 (1976); *State*v. *Hokenson,*96 Idaho 283, 527 P.2d 487 (1974); *State v. Owen,*73 Idaho 394, 253 P.2d 203 (1953). Furthermore, when this particular jury instruction is read together with the other instructions, as it must be, *State v. Radabaugh,*93 Idaho 727, 471 P.2d 582 (1970), it is clear that the proper burden of proof was placed on the prosecution, and the instruction was not in contradiction with the other instructions.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 12.4

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, Andrew
Bonfield, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of National Grid plc; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 July 2017



/s/ Andrew BonfieldAndrew BonfieldTitle: Finance DirectorNational Grid plc
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                          REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) or
                    RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
          (AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

                    I, Floyd Warkol, as Chief Executive Officer of KSW, Inc.
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. [SECTION] 1350, as adopted by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         (1) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: March 5, 2008

                                         /s/ Floyd Warkol
                                         ----------------
                                         Floyd Warkol
                                         Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 122 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39175-39176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15893]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-330-1820-00]


Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Northwest California Resource 
Advisory Council, Arcata, CA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees 
Act (Public Law 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(Public Law 94-579), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Northwest 
California Resource Advisory Council will hold a field tour and meeting 
Thursday and Friday, July 13 and 14, 2000, in Eureka, California. Both 
the field tour and meeting are open to the public. Members of the 
public participating in the field tour must bring their own 
transportation, lunch and beverages. Those wishing to participate in 
the field tour must RSVP with the BLM Arcata Field Office, 1695 Heindon 
Rd., Arcata, CA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting begins at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 
July 13, at the parking area of the Eureka Inn, 518 G St., in Eureka, 
California. Members will join staff from the BLM's Arcata Field Office 
and depart immediately for a guided hike into the southern part of the 
Headwaters Forest Reserve. On Friday, July 14, the council will convene 
a business meeting in the Eureka Inn. Agenda items include discussion 
of the BLM's proposed development of a national strategy for management 
of off-highway vehicles on

[[Page 39176]]

public lands. The council will accept public comments on this topic, 
and others, beginning at 11 a.m. Depending on the number of persons 
wishing to speak, a time limit could be established. The council will 
also discuss emerging issues for the BLM, review a proposed publication 
series, and hear reports from the managers of the BLM's Arcata, Redding 
and Ukiah field offices.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Lynda Roush, BLM Arcata Field 
Manager, at (530) 233-4666.

Joseph J. Fontana,
Public Affairs Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-15893 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15792]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-2391-000]


Doswell Limited Partnership; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 19, 2000.
    Doswell Limited Partnership (Doswell) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Doswell will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transaction as a marketer. Doswell also requested waiver of 
various Commission regulations. In particular, Doswell requested that 
the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Doswell.
    On June 15, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Doswell should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Doswell authorized 
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a 
guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of 
another person, provided that such issuance or assumption is for some 
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Doswell's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 17, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-15792 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Cite as Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608.] 

HAZEL, APPELLANT, v. KNAB, WARDEN, APPELLEE. 

[Cite as Hazel v. Knab, 130 Ohio St.3d 22, 2011-Ohio-4608.] 

Habeas corpus—Dismissal of petition affirmed—R.C. 2969.25(C)—Failure to 

include certified statement of inmate account balance in affidavit of 

indigency is fatal defect. 

(No. 2011-0825—Submitted September 7, 2011—Decided 

September 15, 2011.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 11CA3231. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the 

petition of appellant, Corey Hazel, for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his 

release from prison. As the court of appeals correctly held, Hazel’s petition was 

defective because although he filed an affidavit of indigency and sought waiver of 

prepayment of the court’s filing fees, he failed to include in his affidavit of 

indigency a statement setting forth the balance in his inmate account for each of 

the preceding six months, as certified by the institutional cashier, in violation of 

R.C. 2969.25(C). “The requirements of R.C. 2969.25 are mandatory, and failure 

to comply with them subjects an inmate’s action to dismissal.” State ex rel. White 

v. Bechtel, 99 Ohio St.3d 11, 2003-Ohio-2262, 788 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 5. Hazel’s 

subsequent filing of the statement did not cure the defect. See R.C. 2969.25(C); 

see also Fuqua v. Williams, 100 Ohio St.3d 211, 2003-Ohio-5533, 797 N.E.2d 

982, ¶ 9. And although Hazel attempts to excuse his noncompliance with R.C. 

2969.25(C) by citing a purported prison policy, which he attached to his reply 

brief, we cannot consider any evidence that is not part of the record on appeal. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

See State ex rel. Albourque v. Terry, 128 Ohio St.3d 505, 2011-Ohio-1913, 947 

N.E.2d 169, ¶ 3. 

{¶ 2} Moreover, because Hazel either raised or could have raised his 

claims in a previous habeas corpus case, see Hazel v. Knab, 125 Ohio St.3d 1460, 

2010-Ohio-2753, 928 N.E.2d 736, res judicata barred him from filing a successive 

habeas corpus petition in the court of appeals. See Goins v. Pineda, 128 Ohio 

St.3d 358, 2011-Ohio-529, 944 N.E.2d 660. 

{¶ 3} Finally, because Hazel’s petition did not state a facially valid habeas 

corpus claim, the appellate court’s dismissal without prior notice was proper and 

in accordance with the basic, summary procedure of R.C. Chapter 2725. Wells v. 

Hudson, 113 Ohio St.3d 308, 2007-Ohio-1955, 865 N.E.2d 46, ¶ 9; Chari v. Vore

(2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 744 N.E.2d 763. 

{¶ 4} Therefore, the court of appeals properly dismissed Hazel’s habeas 

corpus petition, and we affirm the judgment. 

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Corey Hazel, pro se. 

 Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Hilda Rosenberg, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee. 

______________________
**Exhibit 13.1**

**Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 20-F of Stena AB (publ) (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), Dan Sten Olsson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Staffan Hultgren, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: April 27, 2012 

 

Date: April 27, 2012 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed bythe Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.