alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### O. H. Keene, et al., *Appellants,*v. S. O. Ware, as Mayor, et al., *Appellees.*

143 So. 611.

Division B.

Opinion filed August 9, 1932.

*T. G. Cork,*for Appellants;

*454
      *George F. Westbrook, T'ouchton & Crittenden*and *W. B. Poe,*for Appellees.

Pee Curiam.

This appeal is from a decree dismissing a bill of complaint seeking to restrain the levy of taxes for bond service in the City of Clermont. The levy is resisted because it is alleged to be confiscatory and in violation of Section Ten of Article Nine, Constitution of Florida. ,

Even if not barred by laches the bill was properly dismissed 'because of insufficient allegations and showing to enable this Court to consider and properly adjudicate either one of these questions.

In this situation the decree below must be and is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.

Ellis, J., dissents.

Brown, J., not participating.
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23


                        SCB Computer Technology, Inc.

                       Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-1590) pertaining to the SCB Computer Technology, Inc. 1995
Stock Incentive Plan and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22869)
of SCB Computer Technology, Inc., and the related Prospectus, of our report
dated June 9, 1997, (except for Note 12, as to which the date is June 30,
1997), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SCB Computer
Technology, Inc., included in the Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended
April 30, 1997.


                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Memphis Tennessee
July 25, 1997
<PAGE>

Exhibit 12.1

                         MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING AUTHORITY
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Fiscal Years Ended September 30,
                                         2001        2000        1999        1998      1997(1)
                                       --------    --------    --------    --------   --------
                                                     (in thousands, except ratios)
<S>                                    <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
Income from continuing operations      $214,532    $146,608    $    320    $ 88,148   $ 39,374
Amortization of capitalized interest        794         794         794         794        794
Fixed charges                            65,626      50,904      58,442      51,055     46,327
Capitalized interest                    (40,715)     (9,880)       (534)         --         --
                                       --------    --------    --------    --------   --------
Earnings                               $240,237    $188,426    $ 59,022    $139,997   $ 86,495
                                       ========    ========    ========    ========   ========

Interest expense                       $ 20,375    $ 37,799    $ 55,595    $ 50,172   $ 45,095
Capitalized interest                     40,715       9,880         534          --         --
Amortization of financing fees            4,536       3,225       2,313         883      1,232
                                       --------    --------    --------    --------   --------

Total Fixed Charges                    $ 65,626    $ 50,904    $ 58,442    $ 51,055   $ 46,327
                                       ========    ========    ========    ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges         3.66x       3.70x       1.01x       2.74x      1.87x
                                       ========    ========    ========    ========   ========
</TABLE>

____________________

(1)  The Authority commenced operations at Mohegan Sun on October 12, 1996.
No. 11-5716.

#### Taylor *v.*Sheltered Workshop for the Disabled, Inc., et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

DAVID LEE KILGUS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 184 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
#### § 64.2501 Scope of limitation.

For the purposes of this subpart, a multiunit premises is any contiguous area under common ownership or control that contains two or more distinct units. A commercial multiunit premises is any multiunit premises that is predominantly used for non-residential purposes, including for-profit, non-profit, and governmental uses. A residential multiunit premises is any multiunit premises that is predominantly used for residential purposes.

[73 FR 28057, May 15, 2008]
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            College of Information and Cyberspace
                    National Defense University
                CIC
        Search
                    Search CIC:
                        Search
                Search CIC:
                    Search
    Home

    About 
        Mission & Vision

    Faculty & Staff

    Fact Sheet

    Alumni

    Internships

    FAQ

    Admissions 
        Eligibility Requirements

    Admissions Calendar

    Application Instructions

    Apply Online

    International Students

    Academics 
        Graduate Catalog

    M.S. in Strategic Information and Cyberspace Studies
        
        JPME Master's Degree

    Cyber Workforce Master's Degree (Part Time)

    Leadership Development Programs

    Graduate Certificates

    Academic Partners

    Current Students 
        JPME II  Incoming Students

    LDP Incoming Students

    Student Registration

    Bring Your Own Device

    IA Compliance

    Completion Procedures / Order Transcripts

    Student Services and Resources

    Events
    
        Cyber Beacon

    Cyber PME Colloquium

    Hopper Award

    Lecture Series

    CYBERCOM Symposium

    NEWS

    UC2
    
        About

    Events

    Work With Us

    Center for Cybersecurity
    
        About

    Cybersecurity Center POC

    Cybersecurity Supporting Faculty

    CAE-CDE CISO Certificate Program

    Cybersecurity Trending News

    Cyber Labs
        
        Ethical Hacking

    Critical Infrastructure - SCADA

    Cyber Exercises
        
        Tabletop Exercise

    Cyber Competitions

    Cyber Resources and Awareness

    Stakeholder / Industry Advisory Council

    Contact 
        Contact Us

    Directions

    Access to Ft. McNair

    Map of Ft. McNair  Home
  NEWS
  News & Announcements
 News & Announcements News
 University of Texas at San Antonio - Cybersecurity Manufacturing Innovation Institute Fourth Place
 Paper info.
 SHARE
 PRINT
 National Defense University


College of Information and Cyberspace

300 Fifth Ave., Bldg. 62
Fort Lesley J. McNair
Washington, DC 20319-5066

202-685-6300
                    Stay Connected
                
                
                DOD Privacy & Security
 DOD Links Disclaimer
 DOD Social Media Policy
 DOD Web Policy
 FOIA
 NDU System of Records Notice
 NDU Privacy & Security Notice
 No FEAR Act
 Open GOV
 Plain Writing Act
 Section 508
 Small Business Act
 USA.gov
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE Justice

JUDY C. PARKER Justice 

# Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449 www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

June 6, 2018

Darrell R. Carey

LAW OFFICES OF

DARRELL R. CAREY

300 15th Street Canyon, TX 79015

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * James A. Farren

Criminal District Attorney

2309 Russell Long Boulevard, Suite 120 Canyon, TX 79015

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-17-00448-CR, 07-17-00449-CR, 07-17-00450-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 26976-C

Style: Jimmy Edward Henderson v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The following was filed Tuesday, June 05, 2018, in the captioned appeal:

Reporter’s Record (10 volumes)

Very truly yours,



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable Ana Estevez (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Barbara Younger (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
§ 54.1609 De-enrollment from the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. ( a ) *De-enrollment generally.* If a participating provider has a reasonable basis to believe that an Emergency Broadband Benefit Program subscriber does not meet or no longer meets the criteria to be considered an eligible household under 47 CFR 54.1605, the participating provider must notify the subscriber of impending termination of his or her Emergency Broadband Benefit discount. Notification of impending termination must be sent in writing separate from the subscriber's monthly bill, if one is provided, and must be written in clear, easily understood language. The participating provider must allow a subscriber 30 days following the date of the impending termination letter to demonstrate continued eligibility. A subscriber making such a demonstration must present proof of continued eligibility to the National Verifier or the participating provider consistent with the participating provider's approved alternative verification process. A participating provider must de-enroll any subscriber who fails to demonstrate eligibility within five business days after the expiration of the subscriber's deadline to respond.
( b ) *De-enrollment for duplicative support.* Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, upon notification by the Administrator to any participating provider that a subscriber is receiving the Emergency Broadband Benefit discount from another participating provider, or that more than one member of a subscriber's household is receiving the Emergency Broadband Benefit discount and that the subscriber should be de-enrolled from participation in that provider's Emergency Broadband Benefit program, the participating provider must de-enroll the subscriber from participation in that provider's Emergency Broadband Benefit discount within five business days. A participating provider shall not claim any de-enrolled subscriber for Emergency Broadband Benefit reimbursement following the date of that subscriber's de-enrollment.
( c ) *De-enrollment requested by subscriber.* If a participating provider receives a request from a subscriber to de-enroll, it must de-enroll the subscriber within two business days after the request.
No. 11-5763.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 

v. Lamb, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4120.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2021-OHIO-4120

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LAMB, APPELLANT.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as State v. Lamb, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-4120.] 

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.

(No. 2021-0271―Submitted November 10, 2021―Decided November 24, 2021.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-19-1177, 

2021-Ohio-87. 

_________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART,

and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Timothy B. Hackett, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant, Marwan Lamb. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

 2

_________________
§ 73.760 Alternate main transmitters. The licensee of an international broadcast station may be licensed for alternate main transmitters provided that a technical need for such alternate transmitters is shown and that the following conditions are met: Both transmitters: ( a ) Are located at the same place;
( b ) Shall have the same power rating; and
( c ) Shall meet the construction, installation, operation, and performance requirements of good engineering practice.
[37 FR 25843, Dec. 5, 1972. Redesignated at 70 FR 46677, Aug. 10, 2005]
S89A0191.

#### LOVE v. THE STATE.

(383 SE2d 897)

Decided October 5, 1989.

*Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, A. Kristina Connelly,*for ap*469pellant.

*468Weltner, Justice.

Shirley Love shot and killed her husband, Grady Love, with a handgun. She was indicted for murder, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment.1

Her sole ground for appeal is the introduction of a certain photograph which, she contends, is unusually gruesome, repetitious of evidence previously submitted, and irrelevant and immaterial to any element of proof involved in the trial of the case.

1. The photograph depicts a portion of the victim’s head, displaying the wound inflicted by the fatal projectile.

2. The rule that governs this appeal is that laid down in *Brown v. State,*250 Ga. 862, 867 (302 SE2d 347) (1983), as follows:

> We take this opportunity to announce a rule to assist counsel in the future in deciding what photos may be offered in evidence. A photograph which depicts the victim after autopsy incisions are made or after the state of the body is changed by authorities or the pathologist will not be admissible unless necessary to show some material fact which becomes apparent only because of the autopsy. A photograph which shows mutilation of a victim resulting from the crime against him may, however gruesome, have relevance to the trial of his alleged assailant. The necessary further mutilation of a body at autopsy has no such relevance and may cause confusion, if not prejudice, in the minds of jurors.

It is unquestioned that the photograph at issue here shows the “mutilation of a victim resulting from the crime against him,” and in no way is connected with any “further mutilation of a body at autopsy.”

Accordingly, under the rule of *Brown,*the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*469*Ralph Van Pelt, Jr., District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Richard C. Litwin,*for appellee.

1

 The homicide was committed on August 25, 1988. The defendant was indicted for the offense of malice murder by the grand jury of Chattooga County on February 6, 1989, and was convicted of the offense of murder on March 1,1989. She was sentenced to life imprisonment on that date. A motion for new trial was filed on March 20, 1989, and denied on May 15, 1989. After filing notice of appeal and enumeration of error, the transcript was received in this court on June 28, 1989, and the case was argued on September 19, 1989.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                                   THE BYLAWS
                                       OF
                               CYLINK CORPORATION
                            a California corporation


         The undersigned, Robert Fougner hereby certifies that:

         1. He is the duly elected and acting Secretary of Cylink Corporation, a
California corporation (the "Corporation").

         2. Effective December 13, 1995 , Section 2.9(d) was added to the Bylaws
of the Corporation to read in its entirety as follows:

                  "Section 2.9. Voting.

                           . . . .

                           (d)  Notwithstanding  any term of this  Section  2.9,
                  during  any  period in which (i) the  corporation  is a listed
                  corporation,  as "listed corporation" is defined in California
                  Corporations Code Section  301.5(d),  and (ii) its Articles of
                  Incorporation provide that shareholders of the corporation are
                  not   entitled  to  cumulate   their  votes  in  elections  of
                  directors,  this  Section  2.9  shall  not be  deemed to allow
                  shareholders of the corporation to cumulate their votes in the
                  elections of  directors,  and further  Section  2.9(c)  hereof
                  shall not apply  with  respect  to voting in the  election  of
                  directors."

         3. Effective December 13, 1995,  Article XIII,  Transfer of Shares, has
been repealed and deleted in its entirety from the Bylaws of the Corporation.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has set his hand hereto this 26th
day of March, 1997.


                                         /s/ Robert B. Fougner
                                         --------------------------
                                         Robert B. Fougner
                                         Secretary
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 1, 2006

d1129 

# Order

December 1, 2006

132537 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132537 COA: 272888 Muskegon CC: 05-051518-FH DETRICK ANTIONE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the Octobe r 13, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals i s considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would grant interlocutory le ave to appeal to consider the constitutionality of requiring a filing fee from indigent defendants in criminal cases.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4646

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make optional the requirement that a State seek adjustment or recovery from an individual’s

estate of any medical assistance correctly paid on behalf of the individual

under the State plan under such title, and to raise the minimum age

of the individuals against whose estates the State is permitted to seek

such adjustment or recovery.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 24, 1994

Mr. DEAL (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas,

Mr. PARKER, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make

optional the requirement that a State seek adjustment

or recovery from an individual’s estate of any medical

assistance correctly paid on behalf of the individual

under the State plan under such title, and to raise the

minimum age of the individuals against whose estates

the State is permitted to seek such adjustment or recovery.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4646 IH

1 SECTION 1. MAKING ESTATE RECOVERY OPTIONAL UNDER

2 STATE MEDICAID PLANS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1917(b)(1) of the Social

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)), as amended by sec5 tion 13612(a) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

6 of 1993 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘OBRA–1993’’), is

7 amended by striking ‘‘shall seek’’ each place it appears

8 and inserting ‘‘may seek’’.

9 (b) INCREASE IN AGE OF BENEFICIARIES SUBJECT

10 TO RECOVERY.—Section 1917(b)(1)(B) of such Act (42

11 U.S.C. 1396p(b)(1)(B)), as amended by section 13612(a)

12 of OBRA–1993, is amended by striking ‘‘55 years’’ and

13 inserting ‘‘65 years’’.

14 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

15 The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect

16 as if included in the enactment of section 13612(a) of

17 OBRA–1993.

Æ
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000784

13-JUL-2017

09:37 AM
#### § 64.602 Jurisdiction.

Any violation of this subpart F by any common carrier engaged in intrastate communication shall be subject to the same remedies, penalties, and procedures as are applicable to a violation of the Act by a common carrier engaged in interstate communication.

[65 FR 38436, June 21, 2000]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 156 (Monday, August 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46494-46495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: August 31, 2006.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: NIEHS/National Institutes of Health, Building 4401, East 
Campus, 79 T.W. Alexander Drive, 122, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27709.
    Contact Person: Michelle Victalino, Scientific Review Branch, 
Division of Extramural Research and Training, Nat'l Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences, P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919/541-3035, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd8b949e89929c9194939290bd909c9491d3939495d39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e78676d7a616f62676061634e636f67622060676620696178">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.115, 
Biometry and Risk Estimation--Health Risks from Environmental 
Exposures; 93.142, NIEHS Hazardous Waste Worker Health and Safety 
Training; 93.143, NIEHS Superfund Hazardous Substances--Basic 
Research and Education; 93.894, Resources and Manpower Development 
in the Environmental Health Sciences; 93.113, Biological Response to

[[Page 46495]]

Environmental Health Hazards; 93.114, Applied Toxicological Research 
and Testing, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 7, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-6877 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 69.502 Base factor allocation. Projected revenues from the following shall be deducted from the base factor portion to determine the amount that is assigned to the Carrier Common Line element: ( a ) End User Common Line charges, less any marketing expense revenues recovered through end user common line charges pursuant to § 69.156;
( b ) Special Access surcharges; and
( c ) Beginning July 1, 2002, the portion of per-line support that carriers receive pursuant to § 54.901 of this chapter; and
( d ) Line port costs in excess of basic analog service pursuant to § 69.130.
[62 FR 31939, June 11, 1997, as amended at 62 FR 40464, July 29, 1997; 66 FR 59733, Nov. 30, 2001; 78 FR 5750, Jan. 28, 2013]