alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

January 5, 2024

SC-2023-0892

Ex parte Curtis Lee Johnson. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Curtis Lee Johnson 

v. State of Alabama) (Cherokee Circuit Court: CC-20-900036; Criminal 

Appeals: CR-21-0291).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on January 5, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Shaw, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Bryan, 

Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
§ 140.915 Items to be recorded. ( a ) The following list of items must be recorded in the TVR, official logbook, or in accordance with the TSMS applicable to the vessel: ( 1 ) Personnel records, in accordance with § 140.400;
( 2 ) Safety orientation, in accordance with § 140.410;
( 3 ) Record of drills and instruction, in accordance with § 140.420;
( 4 ) Examinations and tests, in accordance with § 140.615;
( 5 ) Operative navigational safety equipment, in accordance with § 140.620;
( 6 ) Navigation assessment, in accordance with § 140.635;
( 7 ) Navigation safety training, in accordance with § 140.645;
( 8 ) Oil residue discharges and disposals, in accordance with § 140.655;
( 9 ) Record of inspection of towing gear, in accordance with § 140.820; and
( 10 ) Fire-detection and fixed fire-extinguishing, in accordance with § 142.240.
( b ) For the purposes of this subchapter, if items are recorded electronically in a TVR or other record as specified by the TSMS applicable to the towing vessel, these electronic entries must include the date and time of entry and name of the person making the entry. If after an entry has been made, someone responsible for entries determines there is an error in an entry, any entries to correct the error must include the date and time of entry and name of the person making the correction and must preserve a record of the original entry being corrected.
Note to § 140.915. For towing vessels subject to 46 U.S.C. 11301, there are statutory requirements in that U.S. Code section for additional items that must be entered in the official logbook. Regarding requirements outside this subchapter, such as requirements in 33 CFR 151.25 to make entries in an oil record book, § 140.915 does not change those requirements.
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed December 23, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01401

- CR

LAQUINN TYRONE LOVEL Y , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18

- 51963

- N



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Schenck Before the Court is appellant’s November 22, 2019 mot ion to withdraw the notice of appeal

and dismiss the appeal. The motion is signed by appellant and by counsel. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.2(a). We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the appeal.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2 (b) 191401F.U05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LAQUINN TYRONE LOVELY, Appellant

No. 05

- 19

- 01401

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18

- 51963

- N. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Myers and Carlyle participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 23 rd day of D ecember , 2019

.
§ 131.860 Rigid liferafts. ( a ) The following must be plainly marked or painted, near one entrance of each rigid liferaft: ( 1 ) The name of the vessel.
( 2 ) For each vessel in ocean service, the name of the port whose marking on the stern is required by § 67.123 of this chapter.
( b ) The length of the painter must be plainly marked or painted, near one entrance of each rigid liferaft.
( c ) The number of persons the rigid liferaft is approved for must be plainly marked or painted, over each entrance to each raft, in letters and numbers at least 102 millimeters (4 inches) high and in a color contrasting to that of the raft. This number must— ( 1 ) Be the number of persons the rigid liferaft is equipped for; and
( 2 ) Not be greater than the number of persons the rigid liferaft is approved for, as shown on its nameplate.
( d ) The rigid liferaft must be marked with the words “SOLAS A pack” or “SOLAS B pack”, to reflect the pack inside.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Richard A. Widdicombe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of 21st Century Holding
Company;


2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;


3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 we have:


         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;


         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
         about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
         of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such
         evaluations; and


         c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that was materially affected,
         or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's control
         over financial reporting; and;


5. The registrant's other certifying officers 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 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; and


         b) 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.


Date: May 17, 2004.


/s/ Richard A. Widdicombe
Chief Executive Officer
No. 5688.

#### Thomas Cavanaugh *v.*The City of Fort Worth.

Practice—Appeal Bond.—An appeal bond conditioned that the appellant will “pay all fines and costs in the county court, and all costs in the recorder’s court,” conforms to the statute which provides that the appellant “shall pay such fine and cost as shall be adjudged against him in the county court, as well as other cost that may have been adjudged against him in the court below.”

Appeal from the County Court of Tarrant. Tried below before the Hon. Sam Furman, County Judge.

The opinion sufficiently discloses the case.

*86Opinion delivered June 6, 1888

*Byron G. Johnson,*for the appellant.

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

Hurt, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the recorder’s-court of Fort Worth for abusive or violent language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace. He appealed to the county court, and, upon motion of the city attorney, the appeal was-dismissed, because the appeal bond was “more onerous than the law requires.”

The conditions of the bond are that the defendant shall pay all fines and cost in the county court and all costs in the recorder’s court. The code requires that he “shall pay such fine and cost as shall be adjudged against him in the county court, as well as other cost that ma3r have been adjudged against him in the court below.” (Code Crim. Proc., art. 854.)

We can perceive no material difference in the conditions named in the bond and those required by the code. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

*Reversed and remanded.*
§ 2554.51 What if the investigation indicates criminal misconduct? ( a ) Any investigating official may: ( 1 ) Refer allegations of criminal misconduct directly to the Department of Justice for prosecution or for suit under the False Claims Act or other civil proceeding;
( 2 ) Defer or postpone a report or referral to the reviewing official to avoid interference with a criminal investigation or prosecution; or
( 3 ) Issue subpoenas under other statutory authority.
( b ) Nothing in this part limits the requirement that the Corporation employees report suspected violations of criminal law to the Corporation's Office of Inspector General or to the Attorney General.
#### THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, EX REL. CHARLES S. ECKERT, PROSECUTORS, v. THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF PATERSON ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

Argued October 3, 1929

Decided October 3, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

Eor the prosecutors, *Charles H. Boemer.*

Eor the defendants, *Nathaniel Kent.*

Per Curiam.

This writ of *certiorari*brings up for review a resolution of the board of aldermen of the city of Paterson appointing .commissioners to divide the city of Paterson into wards. The action of the city is based upon chapter 264 of the laws of 1929, which grants power to change ward lines to “any municipality having a board of aldermen.” This classification contravenes article 4, section 7, subdivision 11 of the constitution of the state. See *Ross*v. Winsor, 48 *N. J. L.*96; *Dobbins*v. *Long*Branch, 59 *Id.*146; *Delaware River Transportation Co.*v. Trenton, 86 *Id.*48; affirmed, 86 *Id.*679, and *Hueston*v. Atwater, 97 *Id.*414.

This view makes it unnecessary to consider the other points raised.

The resolution will be set aside.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

Deborah S. Hunt 

Clerk

100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 

POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 

Tel. (513) 564-7000 

www.ca6.uscourts.gov

 Filed: September 21, 2021 

 

Ms. Kinikia D. Essix 

Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit 

231 W. Lafayette Boulevard 

Fifth Floor Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse 

Detroit, MI 48226-0000 

 Re: Case No. 20-1973, Phillip Gibbs v. Erica Huss

Originating Case No. : 2:14-cv-14028 

Dear Ms. Essix: 

 Enclosed is a copy of the mandate filed in this case. 

 Sincerely yours, 

 

 s/Patricia J. Elder, Senior Case Manager 

 for Monica Page, Case Manager 

cc: Mr. Benton C. Martin 

 Mr. John S. Pallas 

 Mr. Bernard Eric Restuccia 

Enclosure 

 

Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 52, PageID.1823 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 2 Case: 20-1973 Document: 30 Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

 

________________ 

 No: 20-1973 

________________

 

 Filed: September 21, 2021 

PHILLIP CHARLES GIBBS 

 Petitioner - Appellant 

v. 

ERICA HUSS 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

 

MANDATE 

 Pursuant to the court's disposition that was filed 08/30/2021 the mandate for this case hereby 

issues today. 

 

COSTS: None 

Case 2:14-cv-14028-MFL-PJK ECF No. 52, PageID.1824 Filed 09/21/21 Page 2 of 2 Case: 20-1973 Document: 30 Filed: 09/21/2021 Page: 2
# CE2009066EN.01008501.xml

| 20.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 66/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 66/85

---

Common organisation of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products *

P6_TA(2008)0076

P6_TA(2008)0076

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 March 2008 on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (COM(2008)0027 — C6-0061/2008 — 2008/0011(CNS))

(2009/C 66 E/20)

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0027), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0027),

| — | having regard to Articles 36 and 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0061/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Articles 36 and 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0061/2008),

| — | having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0045/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0045/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

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

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; |
| --- | --- |

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. |
| --- | --- |

4.

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

---
Editorial Note on Subpart 113.25 of Part 113
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart 113.25 of part 113 appear by CGD-94-108, 61 FR 28288, June 4, 1996.

§ 113.25-30 General emergency alarm systems for barges of 300 or more gross tons with sleeping accommodations for more than six persons. The general emergency alarm system for a barge of 300 or more gross tons with sleeping accommodations for more than six persons must meet the requirements of Subpart 113.25, except as follows: ( a ) The number and location of contact makers must be determined by the design, service, and operation of the barge. Note:
Contact makers in the primary work area, quarters area, galley and mess area, machinery spaces, and the navigating bridge or control area should be considered.
( b ) If a distribution panel cannot be above the uppermost continuous deck because of the design of the barge and is installed below the deck, it must be as near the deck as practicable.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15272, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28289, June 4, 1996]
§ 121.240 Gas systems. Cooking systems using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) must meet the following requirements: ( a ) The design, installation and testing of each LPG system must meet ABYC A-1, “Marine Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Systems,” Chapter 6 of NFPA 302, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( b ) The design, installation and testing of each CNG system must meet ABYC A-22, “Marine Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Systems,” Chapter 6 of NFPA 302, or other standard specified by the Commandant.
( c ) Cooking systems using Chapter 6 of NFPA 302 as the standard must meet the following additional requirements. ( 1 ) The storage or use of CNG containers within the accommodation area, machinery spaces, bilges, or other enclosed spaces is prohibited;
( 2 ) LPG or CNG must be odorized in accordance with ABYC A-1, appendix 4, or A-22, appendix 4, respectively;
( 3 ) The marking and mounting of LPG cylinders must be in accordance with ABYC A-1, appendix 7; and
( 4 ) LPG cylinders must be of the vapor withdrawal type as specified in ABYC A-1, section 1.7.
( d ) Continuous pilot lights or automatic glow plugs are prohibited for an LPG or CNG installation using ABYC A-1 or A-22 as the standard.
( e ) CNG installation using ABYC A-22 as the standard must meet the following additional requirements: ( 1 ) The storage or use of CNG containers within the accommodation area, machinery spaces, bilges, or other enclosed spaces is prohibited:
( 2 ) CNG cylinders, regulating equipment, and safety equipment must meet the installation, stowage, and testing requirements of paragraph 6-5.12 of NFPA 302; and
( 3 ) The use or stowage of stoves with attached CNG cylinders is prohibited as specified in paragraph 6-5.1 of NFPA 302.
( f ) If the fuel supply line of an LPG or CNG system enters an enclosed space on the vessel, a remote shut off valve must be installed that can be operated from a position adjacent to the appliance. The valve must be located between the fuel tank and the point where the fuel supply line enters the enclosed portion of the vessel. A power operated valve installed to meet this requirement must be of a type that will fail closed.
( g ) The following variances from ABYC A-1 section 1.12 are allowed for CNG: ( 1 ) The storage locker or housing access opening need not be in the top; and
( 2 ) The locker or housing need not be above the waterline.
( h ) The following variances from NFPA 302 are allowed. ( 1 ) The storage locker or housing for CNG tank installations need not be above the waterline as required by paragraph 6-5.12.1.1(a); and
( 2 ) Ignition protection need not be provided as required by paragraph 6-5.4.
Note to § 121.240 :
The ABYC and NFPA standards referenced in this section require the posting if placards containing safety precautions for gas cooking systems.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 933, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51352, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58463, Sept. 29, 2000; USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58283, Sept. 29, 2014]
#### Townsend v. Bissell.

*Trespass—possession essential to sustain action for —justice's court—question of possession of realty not one of title.*

In an action for trespass in tearing down a wall, *held,*that it was essential that plaintiff should, at the time of the trespass, show that he was in possession of the *locus in quo,*and that proof of a mere tortious occupancy would not suffice.

In such a case the question of actual possession of lands is not one of title, which ousts the justice’s court of jurisdiction.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in the Jefferson county court affirming a judgment in favor of defendant rendered by a justice of the peace.

The action was brought by George 0. Townsend against Robert Bissell and Jane Bissell, his wife, for tearing down and removing a stone wall erected by plaintiff. The defendants, on the trial, intro*584duced evidence showing that the wall was erected on a strip of ground between plaintiff’s and defendants’ premises, 'which had been used as a lane or passage-way for over forty years, also that the wall was removed by the defendant, Jane Bissell, in the presence of the other defendant, her husband, and by his direction. Such other facts as are material appear in the opinion.

*Anson B. Moore,*for appellant.

*D. O'Brien,*for respondents.

Gilbert, J.

The objection to the proof of the lane was too general. H it had been put upon the ground that the defense sought to be established thereby had not been pleaded, it might have been obviated by an amendment. We must, therefore, regard the evidence as properly in the case, and determine the rights of the parties accordingly.

It appears, then, that the *locus in quo*is a part of a lane ten feet wide, running between the premises in possession of the parties respectively, and which had been used as such by the occupants of those premises in common, and for all purposes of ingress and egress for more than forty years. The trespass complained of consisted of the pulling down of a wall which the plaintiff had shortly before built in the lane, and which obstructed the accustomed use of it by the defendants.

The plaintiff could not maintain this action without proof that he was in possession of the *locus in quo*at the time the alleged trespass was committed. He testified to that fact in general terms. But the evidence on the part of the defendants clearly proved the existence of the lane and tha*fc the possession relied on by the plaintiff was tortiously acquired by inclosing a part thereof by means of the wall mentioned That will hardly suffice. Mere occupation under such circumstances does not prove possession. The acts of the plaintiff amounted to nothing more than an unlawful obstruction of the lane, which the defendants were justified in removing. *Brown*v. *Dawson,*12 Ad. & El. 628.

The question of the actual possession of lands in a case like this is not one of title, which ousts the justice’s court of jurisdiction. *Ehle*v. *Quackenboss,*6 Hill, 537.

The judgment should be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 131.925 Compliance with provisions of Certificate of Inspection.

The master of the vessel shall ensure compliance with each provision of the Certificate of Inspection. Nothing in this subchapter prevents the master's diverting the vessel from the route prescribed in the Certificate, or taking other steps necessary and prudent to assist vessels in distress or to handle similar emergencies.