alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State *v.*Intoxicating Liquor, John Jabbour, Keeper.

January Term, 1898.

Present: Taft, C. J., Bo well, Tyler, Munson, Start, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed September 13, 1899.

*Intoxicating liquor.*— Rights *of person apprehended as owner or keepei*— One apprehended and brought before a magistrate under V. S. 4490, is entitled, without filing a claim or giving security, to cross-examine and produce witnesses, and to be heard, by himself and counsel, as to any fact bearing upon his liability for costs.

Seizure of intoxicating liquor under statutory warrant. John Jabbour was apprehended and brought before the court as owner and keeper. City Court of Barre, November é, 1898, *Barney,*J. Judgment condemning the liquor seized and holding Jabbour for the costs of the proceedings. Jabbour excepted.

*23On hearing Jabbour claimed the right, and offered, to cross-examine the witnesses for the State as to the place where the seizure was made, in respect to its character as a place of public resort, as to the particulars of the search of such place, as to the purpose for which the liquor was kept, and as to the ownership of the liquor. He also offered evidence in his own behalf to prove that he was not the owner, keeper or possessor of the liquor seized. On the evidence introduced by the State .he offered and asked permission to argue that he was not the owner, keeper or possessor of the liquor seized and could not be held for costs.

The court ruled against each claim, offer and request of Jabbour above set forth, holding that he could have no standing in court without making a written claim and entering into a recognizance for costs.

*AUand O. Fay*for the State.

*Richard A. Hoar*for Jabbour.

Munson, J.

One apprehended and brought before a magistrate under Y. S. 4490, is entitled, without piling any claim in writing or giving any security, to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the State, and to be heard by himself, witnesses and counsel, as to any fact that would relieve him from the costs therein provided for.»

*Exceptions sustained, ¡judgment against Jabbour reversed, and cause remanded.*
§ 1641.4 Duration of debarment, suspension and removal. A debarment, suspension or removal is effective as set out in the debarring official's decision to debar, suspend or remove, issued pursuant to § 1641.22. ( a ) *Debarment.* ( 1 ) Debarment generally should not exceed three years, but may be for a shorter period based on a consideration of the evidence presented by the IPA. Debarment may exceed three years in extraordinary circumstances.
( 2 ) If a suspension precedes a debarment, the suspension period shall be considered in determining the debarment period.
( 3 ) The debarring official may extend an existing debarment for an additional period if the debarring official determines, based on additional facts not previously in the record, that an extension is necessary to protect LSC funds. The standards and procedures in this part shall be applied in any proceeding to extend a debarment.
( b ) *Suspension.* ( 1 ) The debarring official may determine that a cause for suspension exists, but that an investigation or other legal or debarment proceeding should be completed before proceeding to a debarment. Suspension shall be for a temporary period pending the completion of an investigation or other legal or debarment proceedings, including a proceeding conducted by the OIG, a law enforcement or other government agency, an investigative or audit official from another OIG, a court, or a state licensing body or other organization with authority over IPAs.
( 2 ) If debarment proceedings are not initiated within 12 months after the date of the suspension notice, the suspension shall be terminated unless an official or organization conducting a proceeding referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section requests its extension in writing. In such cases, the suspension may be extended up to an additional six months. In no event may a suspension be imposed for more than 18 months, unless debarment proceedings have been initiated within that period.
( 3 ) The OIG shall notify the appropriate official or organization conducting a proceeding referred to in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, if any, of the suspension within 10 days of its implementation, and shall notify such official or organization of an impending termination of a suspension at least 30 days before the 12-month period expires to allow an opportunity to request an extension.
( 4 ) The limit on the duration of a suspension in paragraph (b)(2) of this section may be waived by the affected IPA.
( c ) *Removal.* Removal shall be effective for the years remaining on the existing contract(s) between the IPA and the recipient(s).
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel, CIDR Contract Review-Teleconference.                    

*Date:*                         November 20, 2006.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rudy O. Pozzatti, PhD,  Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-0838.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 25, 2006.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 06-9033 Filed 11-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Theresa Rahm, as Administratrix of John Rahm, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Respondent.

*Rohm v. N. Y. O. & II. R. R. R. Go.,*122 App. Div. 895, appeal dismissed.

(Argued January 22, 1909;

decided February 9, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered February 21,1908, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have occurred through defendant’s negligence.

*573
      *Dennis*O’Brien, *S. K. Williams*and *B. C. Williams*for appellant.

*Daniel M. Beach*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Cray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Hi'scook and Chase, JJ.
UNITED STATES
               SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                     Washington D. C.  20549

                       ___________________

                            FORM 10-Q


       Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
               the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2000 Commission File No. 1-14501


                   PENNZOIL-QUAKER STATE COMPANY
       (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

             Delaware                          76-0200625
  (State or other jurisdiction              (I.R.S. Employer
 of incorporation or organization)         Identification No.)


                  Pennzoil Place, P.O. Box 2967
                    Houston, Texas 77252-2967
            (Address of principal executive offices)




                             EXHIBIT

         PENNZOIL-QUAKER STATE COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        INDEX TO EXHIBITS


Exhibit No.

  12  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges for the
      six months ended June 30, 2000 and 1999.

  27  Financial Data Schedule.
C"7 

PNANTOM PILOT TRIINING GUIDE 

Earning Vour Stripes
# PAC Table 1
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 6496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-971]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2754]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

January 24, 2006.

    A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to this petition must be filed by February 23, 2006. See 
Sec.  1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies 
to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of 
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Cambridge, Newark, St. Michaels, and 
Stockton, Maryland and Chincoteague, Virginia) (MM Docket No. 04-20).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-971 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 3.1
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              SYMPOSIUM CORPORATION

                         Pursuant to Section 242 of the
                         General Corporation Law of the
                                State of Delaware

                  Symposium Corporation, a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), hereby certifies as
follows:

                  FIRST:   The name of the Corporation is Symposium Corporation.

                  SECOND: The Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation
was filed with the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on
May 9, 1997 under the name Brack Industries, Inc. The Amended and Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation was filed with the office of the
Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on October 7, 1998 under the name
Symposium Telecom Corporation.

                   THIRD: The first paragraph of Article THIRD of the Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is hereby amended
so that it shall read in its entirety as follows:

                  "THIRD: 1. The authorized capital stock of the Corporation
                  shall consist of 110,000,000 shares, of which 100,000,000
                  shares shall be designated Common Stock, par value $0.001 per
                  share (the "Common Stock"), and 10,000,000 shares shall be
                  designated Preferred Stock, par value $0.001 per share (the
                  "Preferred Stock")."


                  FOURTH: The foregoing amendment to the Corporation's Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation was declared advisable by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation pursuant to a resolution duly adopted on August 23,
2000, and was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 242(b)
of the Delaware General Corporation Law by the vote of a majority of the
stockholders of the Corporation entitled to vote thereon.

<PAGE>   2
                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this
Certificate to be executed this 11th day of October, 2000.



                                SYMPOSIUM CORPORATION

                                By:  /s/ Ronald Altbach
                                     Ronald Altbach
                                     Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the
                                     Board of Directors and Secretary
EX-35 (c)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 12, 2007

Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
Trust, Series 2006-ASAP4

Per Section 4.15 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 7/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Securities Administrator),
hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:

(A)  a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year or
     portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement, or
     such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or
     Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
     supervision and

(B)  to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such party
     has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such other
     applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or Servicing
     Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such year or
     portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any such
     obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure known to
     such officer and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
##### 



Certification Pursuant to Section 302
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ David C. ChoiDavid C. ChoiChief Financial Officer
**This website provides an overview of the Intelligent Vehicle Initiative's (IVI) progress and accomplishments.The 1998 Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) authorized IVI as part of theUSDOT's Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program.**

----

----

| Copyright 2002          USDOT IVI - Mitretek Systems, Inc.          All Rights Reserved
**Search here:** |  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
EXHIBIT 23.1

















Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We have issued our report dated March 31, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of WaferGen Bio-systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of WaferGen Bio-systems, Inc. on Form SB-2 (File No. 333-146239), Forms S-1 (File Nos. 333-162470 and 333-165155), Form S-3 (File No. 333- 167165), and Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-152597, 333-164558 and 333-170029).











/s/ Rowbotham and Company LLP








San Francisco, California


March 31, 2011
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
JORGE GUERRERO , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 23

- 0249 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Mohave County

No. S8015CR20080927 The Honorable Rick A. Williams , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Mohave County Attorney ’ s Office , Kingman By Matthew J. Smith Counsel for Respondent
Jorge Guerrero , Buckeye Petitioner FILED 07-16-2024STATE v. GUERRERO Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs , Judge Jennifer M. Perkins, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Jorge Guerrero seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is the petitioner’s second petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review . We find that the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
§ 262.3 Payments for information and evidence in furtherance of investigations. ( a ) *Approval of Payment.* Law enforcement personnel may pay for information and evidence in furtherance of investigations of felonies and misdemeanors related to Forest Service administration. ( 1 ) Criminal investigators in the GS-1811 series and other law enforcement personnel designated by the Chief of the Forest Service, Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations, or Special Agent in Charge may, without prior approval, pay up to $1,000 for information and evidence under this section.
( 2 ) Payments over $1,000 and up to $5,000 require prior written approval from the Special Agent in Charge.
( 3 ) Payments over $5,000 and up to $10,000 require prior written approval from the Director of Law Enforcement and Investigations.
( 4 ) Payments over $10,000 require prior written approval from the Chief of the Forest Service.
( b ) *Limitations.* Payments for information and evidence under this section are restricted to furthering investigations of felony and misdemeanor violations. Payments for information and evidence in furtherance of investigations of infractions are not authorized under this section.
[79 FR 44295, July 31, 2014]
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum on Amodei for Nevada 

(AFN) 

A13-03 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shavm Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on March 26,20IS, the Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Audit Division Reconunendation 

Memorandum on Amodei for Nevada, as recommended in the Memorandum 

from the Chief Compliance Officer and the Audit Division dated March 11, 

2015. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub 

voted affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

IIJUU 

Date ' Shawn Woodhead Werth T 

Secretary and Clerk of the Conunission