alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Vlasek v. William Wilson.

Filed February 19, 1895.

No. 6038.

Justice of the Peace: Bill op Exceptions: Review. No ground of complaint in this case being disclosed independently of a bill of exceptions settled by a justice of the peace, the judgment rendered by said justice of the peace without the intervention of a jury will not be disturbed, since that magistrate had no power to settle such indispensable bill of exceptions. Following *Moline, Mtlburn & Stoddard Co. v. Curtis,*38 Neb., 520, and other cases thereon predicated.

*11Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Tuttle, J.

*Pound & Burr,*for plaintiff in error.

*Sawyer, Snell & Frost, contra.*

Ryan, C.

From a transcript it appears that the defendant in error began a suit before A. D. Borgelt, a justice of the peace of Lancaster county, to recover damages on account of the killing of some live stock by a dog owned by the plaintiff in error. A summons was issued June 21, 1892, and was delivered to E. Hunger, a constable, for service. This was returned served on Joseph Ylaeek June 22, 1892. The return of this service was signed “T. A. Hayes, dept, constable.” The sole contention of plaintiff in error is that this service did not confer jurisdiction, and that his motion to quash the return should have been sustained, because, as claimed, there was a showing that T. A. Hayes was deputized by the constable and not by the justice of the peace who issued the summons. In the transcript of the docket entries of the justice of the peace there is, as to this matter, nothing more than above stated, and it is clear that the facts claimed to exist are not made to appear thereby. We cannot resort to the alleged bill of exceptions for the data necessary to establish as facts the assertions in the brief of plaintiff in error as to the true history of the authorization of T. A. Hayes to act as deputy constable, for under the circumstances the justice of the peace had no power to settle a bill of exceptions. *(Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Co. v. Curtis,*38 Neb., 520; *Hopkins v. Scott,*38 Neb., 666; *Real v. Honey,*39 Neb., 516.) We cannot, therefore, say that the justice of the peace improperly overruled the motion to quash the return of service and that the rendition of judgment by him was without jurisdiction. The judgment *12of the district court affirming the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace is, in its turn

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register: January 11, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 7)]
[Notices]               
[Page 1592-1593]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ja11-28]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0039]

 
National Poultry Improvement Plan; General Conference Committee 
Meeting

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: We are giving notice of a meeting of the General Conference 
Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan.

DATES: The General Conference Committee meeting will be held on January 
26, 2011, from 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Georgia World Congress 
Center, 285 Andrew Young International Boulevard NW., Atlanta, GA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior 
Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, 1498 
Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094-5104; (770) 922-3496.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The General Conference Committee (the

[[Page 1593]]

Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), 
representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, 
serves an essential function by acting as a liaison between the poultry 
industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health. 
The Committee meets to discuss significant poultry health issues and 
makes recommendations to improve the NPIP program.
    Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include:
    1. Salmonella methodology.
    2. Approval of rapid assays.
    3. FDA equivalency.
    4. NPIP database.
    The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time 
constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the 
discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics 
may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending 
them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 
Written statements may also be filed at the meeting. Please refer to 
Docket No. APHIS-2010-0039 when submitting your statements.
    This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of January 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-346 Filed 1-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```
IB

Union Calendar No. 24

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 819

[Report No. 106–42]

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal

years 2000 and 2001.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1999

Mr. SHUSTER (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr.

DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

MARCH 4, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime

Commission for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Maritime

5 Commission Authorization Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 819 RH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FED2 ERAL MARITIME COMMISSION.

3 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fed4 eral Maritime Commission—

5 (1) for fiscal year 2000, $15,685,000; and

6 (2) for fiscal year 2001, $16,312,000.

Union Calendar No. 24

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 819

[Report No. 106–42]

A BILL

To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

MARCH 4, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
462A14

#### Aaron Byrd and Eric Coombs v. Franklin County, North Carolina

Respondent’s Motion to Strike Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.’s *Amicus Curiae*Brief

Dismissed as moot
#### § 302-9.102 How many POV's may I transport to a post of duty?

You may transport one POV to a post of duty. However, this does not limit the transportation of a replacement POV when authorized under § 302-9.172.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1995
<CASH>                                           7,601
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      265
<ALLOWANCES>                                        16
<INVENTORY>                                        570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,819
<PP&E>                                          87,287
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,713
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,292
<BONDS>                                         27,729
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,709
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,276
<SALES>                                         20,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,619
<CGS>                                            2,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (450)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (179)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (271)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,305
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,034
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-070]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license.

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that Diebold, Inc., of North Canton, Ohio, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in: U.S. Patent No. 5,539,454, entitled “Video Event Trigger and Tracking System Using Fuzzy Logic Comparators,” which has been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to the NASA Glenn Research Center. 

# DATES:

Responses to this notice must be received by August 18, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kent N. Stone, Patent Attorney, John H. Glenn Research Center, Mail Code 500-118, 2100 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191; telephone (216) 433-8855. 

Dated: June 8, 2000.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00-15327 Filed 6-16-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### § 51-9.304-3 Prepayment of fees over $25.

When the Executive Director determines that the anticipated total fee is likely to exceed $25, he shall notify the individual that he must prepay the anticipated fee prior to making the records available. The Committee will remit the excess paid by the individual or bill the individual for an additional amount according to variations between the final fee charged and the amount prepaid.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004539
<NAME> AIRPLANES LIMITED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             218
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       38
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (14)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   245
<PP&E>                                           4,116
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              157
<BONDS>                                          3,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,311)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,122
<SALES>                                              5
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   521
<CGS>                                             (32)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    32
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 388
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
§ 51-5.6 Shipping. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, commodities are sold to the Government on an “F.O.B. destination” basis, with delivery being accomplished when the shipment reaches the facility designated by the contracting activity. Time of delivery is when the shipment is released by the carrier and accepted by the contracting activity or its agent. In this delivery method, the nonprofit agency will normally use commercial bills of lading and will be responsible for any loss or damage to the goods occurring before the commodities reach the designated delivery point. The nonprofit agency will prepare and distribute commercial bills of lading, furnish delivery schedules, designate the carriers, and pay all shipping charges to specified delivery points.
( b ) The Committee may determine that certain commodities are to be sold to the Government on an “F.O.B. origin” basis, with delivery being accomplished when a shipment is placed aboard the vehicle of the initial carrier. Time of delivery is when the shipment is released to and accepted by the initial carrier. In this delivery method, the nonprofit agency will normally use Government bills of lading, and responsibility for loss or damage to the goods while in transit passes to the Government at the time the initial carrier accepts a shipment. If the contracting activity fails to furnish a Government bill of lading promptly, such failure shall be considered an excusable delay in delivery.
[64 FR 55842, Oct. 15, 1999]
[Cite as State v. Perry , 2022-Ohio-944.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 110414

v. :

DEONTRA PERRY, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 24, 2022

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-20-651752-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alicia Harrison, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee

. Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Paul A. Kuzmins, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee

.
LISA B. FORBES, J.:

I. Facts and Procedural History
On March 2, 2021, Deontra Perry (“Perry”) pled guilty to felonious

assault, a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) with a oneyear firearm specification; discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, afelony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3); and having weapons

while under disability, a felony of the third de gree in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2).

On the same day, the trial court sentenced Perry to one year in prison

for the firearm specification, four to six years in prison, under the Reagan Tokes

Law, for the felonious assault, 36 months in prison for the discharge of a firearm on

or near a prohibited premises, and 36 mo nths in prison for the having weapons

while under disability. The one-year pris on term for the firearm specification was

ordered to be served prior to and consecutively to all other charges, which were

ordered to be served concurrently.

It is from this sentence that Perry appeals, arguing that the Reagan

Tokes Law is unconstitutional because it violates the right to trial by jury, the

separation-of-powers doctrine, and the right to due process.

II. Conclusion
Perry’s assignment of error is overruled pursuant to this court’s en

banc decision in State v. Delvallie , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE

ANITA LASTER MAYS, P.J., and EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR

N.B. The author of this opinion is constrained to apply Delvallie . For a full explanation, see State v. Delvallie , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470 (Forbes, J., dissenting).

Judge Eileen T. Gallagher joined the dissent by Judge Lisa B. Forbes in Delvallie and would have found that R.C. 2967.271(C) and (D) of the Reagan Tokes Law are unconstitutional.

Judge Anita Laster Mays is constrained to apply Delvallie’s en banc decision. For a full explanation of her analysis, see State v. Delvallie , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109315, 2022-Ohio-470 (Laster Mays, P.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00476-CR

ROY GUZMAN JR. AKA ROY JUNIOR GUZMAN

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 

454th Judicial District Court of Medina County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 17-08-12518-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 22, 2023
Exhibit 32.2

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 Wyeth (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2008 (the Report), I, Gregory Norden, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 5, 2008



By:

/s/      Gregory NordenGregory NordenSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 102-78.20 Are Federal agencies required to identify historic properties?

Yes, Federal agencies must identify all National Register or National Register-eligible historic properties under their control. In addition, Federal agencies must apply National Register Criteria (36 CFR part 63) to properties that have not been previously evaluated for National Register eligibility and that may be affected by the undertakings of Federally sponsored activities.
#### § 109-45.5104 Disposal.
500 P.2d 900

#### AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Martin NEWTON, Appellee.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1142.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 14, 1972.

Rehearings Denied Oct. 11, 1972.

Review Denied Dec. 12, 1972.

Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Richmond by D. B. Udall, Tucson, for appellant.

Goldbaum & Goetz by Norris L. Ganson, Tucson, for appellee.

Barber, Haralson, Giles & Moore by Dale Haralson, Tucson, for amici curiae Powell.

HOWARD, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment on stipulated facts in favor of the appellee and against the appellant insurance company. There is but one question dispositive of *116this appeal: Is an insurance company precluded from denying liability for a judgment rendered against a former insured when the policy of insurance has been terminated prior to the accident because of a nonpayment of premium, but the insurance company does not return the SR-1A form to the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona Highway Department? This issue has recently been decided in the case of Nicholas v. Carolina Casualty Co., 17 Ariz. App. 252, 497 P.2d 72 (1972) 1 wherein the court held that the failure to file an SR-1A form does not preclude an insurer from ■denying liability.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial ■court awarding judgment in favor of the appellee and against the appellant is reversed.

KRUCKER, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.

1

. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review on July 13, 1972.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HOMER RICHARD CLIFFORD, SR.,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 592 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON^ t/,S

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

C_ —(_«

cr 'o •z. s^-'iDIVISION ONE CO

No. 73837-2-1 3C

v£» o^'

UNPUBLISHED OPINION _—

RENO DUANE DOOLITTLE,

Appellant. FILED: June 13, 2016

Per Curiam. Reno Doolittle appeals the order of restitution entered

following his guilty plea to fourth degree assault but does not appeal the

underlying judgment and sentence. He contends, and the State concedes, that

the record does not contain sufficient reliable evidence to support the restitution

amount, and that he is entitled to a new restitution hearing at which the State

must present such evidence. We accept the concession of error and remand for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Doolittle's statement of additional grounds for review raises claims that are

either beyond the scope of review of the restitution order or are barred by his

guilty plea. See State v. Gaut, 111 Wn. App. 875, 880, 46 P.3d 832 (2002)

(where post-trial order, not judgment and sentence, is the order appealed,

challenges to judgment and sentence are beyond the scope of review; guilty plea

waives the right to appeal the finding of guilt).
Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

For the court:

\ \^-y- l~

| f\ (Msq^ n I J

l±a-
No. 11-10.

#### A. B., By and Through Her Parents, Susan B. et vir *v.*Montgomery County Intermediate Unit.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9046.

#### Pendleton *v.*Sobina, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Albion, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-9441.

#### Slaughter *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.