alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 2681.

#### Jeff Briscoe v. The State.

Pb» ctice—Bill of Exception.—In this ease the trial court charged upon an issue depending upon the evidence. The defendant excepted to the charge because it was unwarranted by any evidence in the case. In his authentication of the bill of exceptions, the trial judge recites that there was no such evidence adduced on the trial, and that the evidence referred to in the charge was evidence adduced on the trial of another case. The statement of facts does contain evidence which would warrant the charge, but, as the bill of exceptions controls, the charge must be held erroneous as unauthorized by any evidence on the trial.

Appeal from the District Court of Falls. Tried below before the Hon. Eugene Williams.

Thfs conviction was for the theft of a horse, and the penalty-assessed against the appellant was a term of five years in the penitentiary.

The question involved in this appeal does not necessitate a statement of the evidence.

*J. T. Martin*and *J. D. Oltorf*for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

In the charge of the court the jury were instructed as follows: “Evidence has been introduced of the loss of other animals from the range about the time this mare in question was missing therefrom. You will consider the loss of other animals from the range only so far as this evidence may tend to develop the transactions out of which this prosecution has grown, and may tend in your opinion to identify the mare in question.” This instruction was excepted to by the defendant upon the ground that it was unwarranted by any evidence adduced on the trial, and the bill of exception, duly authenticated by the trial judge, recites that there was no such evidence in the case, but that the evidence referred to in said charge was evidence which had been introduced in the trial of another cause before said court.

*194Opinion delivered February 9, 1889.

In the statement of facts there appears evidence which would warrant the charge excepted to, but, as the bill of exception expressly states that no such evidence was adduced on the trial, such statement must control, and we must hold that there was no evidence to warrant the charge. (Willson’s Cr. Stat., sec. 2369.) There being no evidence to warrant such charge it was error to give it. (Willson’s Cr. Stat., sec. 2337.) And the error having been excepted to, the conviction must be set aside, although the error may have been harmless. (Willson’s Cr. Stat., sec. 2363.) The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
##### 



Exhibit 23.1 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT To the Board of Directors
of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and any amendments thereto: (1) No.
333-06199 on Form S-8; (2) No. 333-34019 on Form S-8; (3) No. 333-91679 on Form
S-3; (4) No. 333-30194 on Form S-3; and (5) No. 333-99311 on Form S-8, of our
report dated January 23, 2004, except for the second to last
paragraph of Note 11, as to which the date is March 12,
2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and changes in stockholders
equity for the years then ended, which report appears or is incorporated by
reference in the December 31, 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc. /s/ Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. Greenwood Village, Colorado
March 18, 2004
# C_2008264EN.01001501.xml

| 17.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 264/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/15

---

Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2008/C 264/07)

Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below has expired.

1

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2).

2

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Para-cresol | People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 (OJ L 234, 20.9.2003, p. 1) | 21.9.2008 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Para-cresol

People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 (OJ L 234, 20.9.2003, p. 1)

21.9.2008

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 29.1.2008, p. 12.

1

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.

2

---
§ 133.90 Operating instructions. Each OSV must have posters or signs displayed in the vicinity of each survival craft and the survival craft's launching controls that— ( a ) Illustrate the purpose of controls;
( b ) Illustrate the procedures for operating the launching device;
( c ) Give relevant instructions or warnings;
( d ) Can be easily seen under emergency lighting conditions; and
( e ) Display symbols in accordance with IMO Resolution A.760(18).
§ 138.315 External audits for a TSMS certificate. External audits for obtaining and renewing a TSMS certificate are conducted through a TPO and must include both management and vessels as follows: ( a ) *Management audits.* ( 1 ) Prior to the issuance of an owner or managing operator's initial TSMS certificate, or subsequent renewals, an external management audit must be conducted by an auditor from a TPO.
( 2 ) A mid-period external management audit must be conducted between the 27th and 33rd month of the certificate's period of validity.
( b ) *Vessel audits.* ( 1 ) An external audit must be conducted prior to the issuance of the initial COI for vessels subject to an owner or managing operator's TSMS that have been owned or operated for 6 or more months prior to receiving the initial COI.
( 2 ) An external audit must be conducted no later than 6 months after the issuance of the initial COI for vessels subject to the owner or managing operator's TSMS that have been owned or operated for fewer than 6 months prior to receiving the initial COI.
( 3 ) An external audit of all vessels covered by a TSMS certificate must be conducted during the 5-year period of validity of the TSMS certificate. The vessels must be selected randomly and distributed as evenly as possible.
( 4 ) External audits may include the use of objective evidence which may be available at the owner or managing operator's corporate office. Some portions of this audit require visiting each vessel at some point during the 5-year period of validity of the TSMS certificate.
( c ) *Documentation.* The results of the external audit must be documented and maintained for a period of 5 years and made available to the Coast Guard or the external auditor upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 147
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 147 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59782, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 147.66 Inert gas fire extinguishing systems. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76701 , Sept. 18, 2024.
( a ) Inert gas cylinders forming part of a clean agent fixed fire extinguishing system must be retested every five years, except that cylinders with a water capacity of 125 pounds or less may be retested every 10 years in accordance with 49 CFR 180.209(b).
( b ) An inert gas cylinder must be removed from service if it: ( 1 ) Leaks;
( 2 ) Is dented, bulging, severely corroded, or otherwise weakened;
( 3 ) Has lost more than 5 percent of its tare weight; or
( 4 ) Has been involved in a fire.
( c ) Flexible connections between cylinders and discharge piping for fixed inert gas fire extinguishing systems must be renewed or retested in accordance with section 7.3 of NFPA 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 147.7).
[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33886, June 7, 2012]
§ 111.105-17 Wiring methods for hazardous locations. ( a ) Through runs of marine shipboard cable meeting subpart 111.60 of this part are required for all hazardous locations. Armored cable may be used to enhance ground detection capabilities. Additionally, Type MC cable may be used subject to the restrictions in § 111.60-23.
( b ) Where conduit is installed, the applicable requirements of NFPA 70, Clause 9 of IEC 61892-7: 2019, or Clause 7 of IEC of 60092-502: 1999 (all incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter) must be followed. Alternatively, the conduit and cable seals and sealing methods in Clause 6.8 of API RP 14F or API RP 14FZ (both incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter) may be followed. Where required by the standard that is applicable to the listed or certified electrical equipment, seal fittings, termination fittings, or glands must be listed or certified by an independent laboratory for use in hazardous locations.
( c ) Each cable entrance into Class II and Class III (Zone 20, 21, and 22) equipment must be made with dust tight cable entrance seals approved for the installation.
[USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16366, Mar. 16, 2023]
Exhibit 32.01

IDT CORPORATION

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report of IDT Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-K for fiscal 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard S. Jonas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 28, 2010



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Howard S. Jonas    
|Howard S. Jonas        
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2701
In Re: JIM BECK, INCORPORATED, Debtor.

_________________________ JOHN WESLEY OWNBY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JIM BECK, INCORPORATED, Debtor - Appellee, and US TRUSTEE, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-59-C, BK-96-687-WA3-11) Submitted: July 21, 1998 Decided: August 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 John Wesley Ownby, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Stephen Scott, SCOTT & KRONER, P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: John Ownby appeals the district court’s order affirming a decision and order of the bankruptcy court confirming and approvingthe Plan of Reorganization of Jim Beck, Inc. over Ownby’s objections. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinionand find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ownby v. Jim Beck, Inc. , Nos. CA-97-59- C; BK-96-687-WA3-11 (W.D. Va. Nov. 21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DIST RICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00349

- CV

D.R. Horton

- Texas, Ltd. and DRHI,

Inc.

v.

Savannah Properties Associates,

L.P. §

§

§

§ From the 362nd District Court o f

Dent on County (2012

- 40415

- 362 )

November 7, 2013

Opinion by Justice Gardner



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellants D.R. Horton

- Texas, Ltd. and DRHI,

Inc., shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Anne Gardner
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001006282
<NAME> PICK COMMUNICATIONS CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               501,675
<PP&E>                                       4,649,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                 214,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,266,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,414,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,535,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,234
<OTHER-SE>                                (27,472,675)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,266,835
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,824,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,749,294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,749,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (52,595,591)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (57,344,885)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (17.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                              Exhibit 10(i)(5)
 



                                  AMENDMENT


The Rights Agreement dated as of April 4, 1996 between Lucent Technologies Inc. 
and The Bank of New York, Successor Rights Agent, was amended as of February 
18, 1998 by deleting the period at the end of Subsection 25(a)and adding the 
following:


         ; provided that, prior to the Distribution Date, any notice in regard 
         to a declaration or payment of any dividend on the Common Shares 
         payable in Common Shares or to effect a subdivision, combination or 
         consolidation of the Common Shares (by reclassification or otherwise 
         than by payment of dividends in Common Shares) shall be adequately 
         given if given within a reasonable time after the issuance date for 
         such stock dividend or effective date of such subdivision, combination 
         or consolidation.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1733]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Nursing Research; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel, April 18, 2007, 8 
a.m. to April 19, 2007, 9 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 30, 2007, FR 07-360.
    The meeting changed from March 14-15, 2007 to April 18-19, 2007. 
The meeting place changed from Crowne Plaza Hotel, Silver Spring to 
6701 Democracy, Bethesda. The new time begins at 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.on 
4/18/07 and 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 4/19/07. The meeting is closed to 
the public.

    Dated: April 2, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1733 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN D. ROBBINS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-13114

v.

Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

COMMISSIONER OF Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti’s May 13, 2015 report

and recommendation. Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation

on May 27, 2015. On June 24, 2015 Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s

objections. 

This court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject or modify, in

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.

Having thoroughly reviewed the entire record, the court finds that Magistrate

Judge Patti reached the correct conclusions. Accordingly, the court will overrule

Plaintiff's objections. 

5:14-cv-13114-JCO-APP Doc # 23 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 729
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the May 13, 2015 report and

recommendation is ADOPTED as the court’s findings and conclusions.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: June 30, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record on this date, June 30, 2015, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

-2-

5:14-cv-13114-JCO-APP Doc # 23 Filed 06/30/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 730
#### § 141.310 Stowage of survival craft.

Survival craft must be stowed in accordance with the requirements of § 199.130 of this chapter, as far as is practicable on existing towing vessels.
# CE2010045EN.01010502.xml

| 23.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 45/105 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 45/105

---

Medals and tokens similar to euro coins *

P6_TA(2008)0593

European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2182/2004 concerning medals and tokens similar to euro coins (COM(2008)0514 VOL. I — C6-0332/2008 — 2008/0167(CNS))

(2010/C 45 E/29)

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0514 VOL. I), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0514 VOL. I),

| — | having been consulted by the Council (C6-0332/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having been consulted by the Council (C6-0332/2008),

| — | having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0469/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0469/2008),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal;

2.   Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.   Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

WILLIAM LOGUE, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL 

BOARD (COMMONWEALTH OF 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION), 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 548 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of this matter.
Opinion issued March 8, 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 22
- 00 021
- CV

——————————— IN RE TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER DRILLING INC., TRITON VOYAGER ASSET LEASING GMBH, AND TRITON VOYAGER

ASSET LEASING GMBH, ASGARD US , Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator s , Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., Triton Voyager Asset Leasing GmbH, and Triton Voyager Asset Leasing GmbH, Asgard US (collectively, “relators”) , filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging : (1) the trial court’s November 29, 2021 order denying relators’ motion to compel independent medical examinations of real party in interest, Richard Rhodes, and for temporary injunction2

and (2) the trial court’s December 17, 2021 order denying relators’ motion for
reconsiderat ion

. 1
Relators have filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus

. In the motion, relators represent that the “parties have amicably settled their differences,” rendering the mandamus petition moot. Relators’ motion does not
include a ce rtificate of conference, but more than ten days have passed since relators’ motion was filed, and real party in interest has not opposed the relief requested in
relator s ’ motion to di s miss their mandamus petition. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 10.3(a)(2). Accordingly, we grant relators’ motion and dismiss the petition. We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Countiss and Farris

.

1 The underlying case is Richard Rhodes v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., Triton Voyager Asset Leasing GmbH , Triton Voyager Asset Leasing GmbH, Asgard US

, and BOE Exploration & Production LLC , Cause No. 20 21

- 41109 , in the 61st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Fredericka Phillips presiding.