alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Quash Bennett v. The State.

*No. 7021.*

*Decided June 4.*

1. Practice—Impeachment of a Witness.—The trial court properly permitted the defendant to recall to the stand one P., the only prosecuting witness who testified directly to inculpatory facts, and propound to him certain questions for the purpose of laying a predicate whereon to impeach him. But having laid the proper predicate, *540the defendant offered the impeaching testimony, which was excluded by the court upon the ground that by recalling the witness the defendant made him his own witness, and therefore could not impeach him. *Held,*error. By merely recalling the witness to lay -the predicate for his impeachment the defendant did not vouch for his credibility, nor impair his right to impeach him.

3. Same—Impeaching Testimony.-—Having laid the proper predicate, the defendant proposed to prove by one S. that recently before the finding of this indictment the witness P. told him, S., that “as soon as the grand jury met he was going before it and indict every man who had gambled in the Brazos bottom, and that he would not stop there, but would indict those who had not gambled.” *Held,*that the exclusion of the proposed proof as collateral or irrelevant was error. It was competent for the purpose of showing the animus, ill will, and reckless disregard of truth of the impugned witness.

Appeal from the County Court of Falls. Tried below before Hon. S. R. Scott, County Judge.

The conviction was for gaming, and the penalty assessed against the appellant was a fine of ten dollars.

*B. H. Rice,*for appellant.

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

Willson, Judge.

Henry Phoenix, a witness for the State, was the only witness who testified that defendant played at the game of craps. After .said witness had testified, the defendant, with the permission of the court, recalléd him and placed him on the witness stand, and propounded questions to him for the purpose of laying a predicate to impeach him. In this there was no error. Garza v. The State, 3 Texas Ct. App., 286; Treadway v. The State, 1 Texas Ct. App., 668.

Having laid the proper predicate for impeaching said witness, defendant offered impeaching evidence which, upon objection made thereto by the State, was rejected upon the ground that by recalling the witness Phcenix the defendant had made said witness his own and could not impeach him. This was error, and inasmuch as said witness furnished the only testimony of defendant’s guilt, was material error. By recalling said witness merely for the purpose of laying a predicate to impeach him, the defendant did not vouch for his credibility and was not thereby deprived of the right to impeach him. Hor was the impeaching testimony offered collateral or irrelevant, as it was for the purpose of showing the animus, ill will, and reckless disregard of truth of said witness.

Because the court erred in rejecting the proposed impeaching testimony, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*

Judges all present and concurring.
Exhibit 32.1
------------


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                  ---------------------------------------------

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of Zomex  Distribution,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Peter Buckley,  President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Peter Buckley
-------------------------------------
Peter Buckley
President and Chief Executive Officer

November 15, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SUNSTAR HEALTH CARE INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR JULY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,994
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      330
<ALLOWANCES>                                       110
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,403
<PP&E>                                           1,475
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              505
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,975
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,499
<SALES>                                          5,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,081
<CGS>                                            3,371
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,329
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (54)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        28
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (222)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (222)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.4**

 

Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Vice President of Accounting

 

I, James R. Edmondson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.

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; and

(c) 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 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 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; 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.

 

 

/s/ James R. Edmondson                    

James R. Edmondson

Vice President of Accounting
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending September 23, 2006

|Filer                      | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | End of Comment Period                             
|-------------------------- | ------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|MARLBOROUGH BANCSHARES MHC | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by Marlborough Bancshares, MHC and Marlborough Bancshares, Inc., both of Marlborough, Massachusetts, to become a mutual bank holding company and stock bank holding company, respectively, by acquiring Marlborough Savings Bank, Marlborough, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1)and 3(a)(3)of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:10/12/2006
|Newspaper:                 | Not available
|Federal Register:          | 10/12/2006   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2012025EN.01007301.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/73

---

Action brought on 9 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-129/11)

(2012/C 25/142)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: Ph.-E. Partsch and E. Raimond, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Partial annulment of the decision of the Director-General of OLAF concerning the applicant’s last invitation to an interview in the framework of an internal investigation and indicating that a final report on the investigation will be adopted solely on the basis of the information collected and analysed unilaterally by OLAF if the applicant does not take up that invitation.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 28 October 2011 by which OLAF, acting through its General Director, invited the applicant to attend an interview that was to take place on 1 and 2 December 2011 in the premises of OLAF, in Brussels, at eight o’clock in the morning, within the framework of the ‘internal’ investigation concerning reference OF/2010/0207 and notified her that a report terminating the investigation would be drawn up without first giving her the opportunity to be heard if she did not take up that invitation, as that infringes her right to a fair hearing and her fundamental rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 28 October 2011 by which OLAF, acting through its General Director, invited the applicant to attend an interview that was to take place on 1 and 2 December 2011 in the premises of OLAF, in Brussels, at eight o’clock in the morning, within the framework of the ‘internal’ investigation concerning reference OF/2010/0207 and notified her that a report terminating the investigation would be drawn up without first giving her the opportunity to be heard if she did not take up that invitation, as that infringes her right to a fair hearing and her fundamental rights;

| — | grant the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 in damages and compensatory interest; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 in damages and compensatory interest;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### § 197.535 Regulated areas.

(a) Based on the employer's evaluation of the environmental monitoring, whenever the airborne concentration of benzene within an area exceeds or reasonably can be expected to exceed the permissible exposure limits, the person in charge shall mark the area as a regulated area.

(b) The person in charge shall restrict access to regulated areas to authorized persons wearing an appropriate respirator in compliance with § 197.550 and the personal protective clothing and equipment in compliance with § 197.555. The person in charge shall not allow any person to enter a regulated area without another individual in the vicinity to perform rescue or call for help. The second individual must maintain communication with the one entering the regulated area or keep that individual in sight. Also, the second individual must be located at the point of access during confined space entry.

(c) The boundaries of regulated areas must be indicated by barricades, other devices, or by painted areas on the vessel. A sign bearing the following legend in letters at least three inches high (except for the words “DANGER—BENZENE”, which must be printed in letters at least 50 percent larger than the other words) must be posted at each access to the regulated areas:

### DANGER—BENZENE

### REGULATED AREA

### CANCER CAUSING AGENT

### FLAMMABLE—NO SMOKING

### AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY

### RESPIRATOR REQUIRED
2:15-mj-30237-DUTY Doc # 10 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 21
2:15-mj-30237-DUTY Doc # 10 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 22
2:15-mj-30237-DUTY Doc # 10 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 23
2:15-mj-30237-DUTY Doc # 10 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 24
#### State *v.*Jesse S. Young.

Forgery may be committed of an unstamped instrument.

Indictment, charging that respondent, June 24, 1867, "did falsely make and counterfeit” an order for the payment of $51.68, with intent to defraud. The order was set out in the indictment, and it did not appear that there was any IT. S. Internal Kevenue stamp thereon.

The respondent demurred.

*Attorney General*and *Solicitor,*for the State.

*Morrison & Stanley,*for respondent.

Smith, J.

The objection grounded on the want of a stamp cannot be sustained. The order, although unstamped, might, if genuine, be "apparently of some legal efficacy,” (see 2 Bishop on Grim. Law, 3d Ed. sec. 495,) since any holder of it might, on application to the collector, be permitted to affix the proper stamp, upon payment of the penalty, or without any penalty, if the omission appeared to have been "by reason of accident, mistake, inadvertence, or urgent necessity, and without any wilful design to defraud the United States ;” see U. S. Laws, statute July 13, 1866, sec. 9. If the act had contained no such provision for the subsequent affixing of the stamp, we should be slow to hold that Congress intended, by the passage of a revenue law, to make an alteration in the crime of forgery.

•It is suggested by the respondent’s counsel, that the indictment must fail for want of competent evidence to support it, since it is enacted that no writing "required by law to be stamped,” shall be "admitted, or used *403as evidence in any court until a legal stamp or stamps” * * * * "shall have been affixed thereto, as prescribed by law.” The provision of the statute allowing the stamp to be subsequently affixed, affords a sufficient answer to this objection, but there are also other answers equally satisfactory. This order is not a writing "required by law to be stamped.” Stamps are required only upon true instruments, such as were "available without a stamp” before the act passed, "and which would be available afterwards with a stamp.” If the respondent’s position were correct, the respondent could not have been convicted under our statute, although he had affixed a forged stamp to the order. The instrument would in that case be no more duly stamped than it now is. The provision that an unstamped instrument shall not be used as evidence cannot be understood as excluding its use for all possible purposes.

If this section were construed in the iiteral sense contended for by the respondent, the unstamped instrument could not be used in evidence for the government in a prosecution to recover the penalty for omitting to affix a stamp. The statute undoubtedly precludes the use of an unstamped instrument as evidence upon which to found a recovery, or enforcement of the debt or liability which the instrument purports to create or secure, but it cannot be regarded as prohibiting its use for collateral purposes.

These views are substantially, and to some extent literally, the same that are taken by the English authorities on this subject. See 2 East. P. C. 954-6, ch. 19, sec. 45; 2 Russell on Crimes, 346-8.

*Demurrer overruled.*
#### § 308.514 Return premium.

No premium will be returned to the assured with respect to a shipment of goods that attached under the policy except where there was a declaration of value at variance with Clause 8, or an error in the application of a rate or in the computation of a premium, or the insured goods were short-shipped. An application for the return of a premium shall be made on Form MA-307, prescribed in § 308.527, filed in duplicate with the Underwriting Agent who will transmit it to the Maritime Administrator for payment.
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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# Time and Date:

8:30 a.m. (EST), January 22, 2007. 

      ( print page 2528)    

# Place:

4th Floor Conference Room, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

# Status:

Closed to the public. 

# Matters to be Considered:

Personnel. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640. 

Dated: January 16, 2007. 

Thomas K. Emswiler, 

Secretary to the Board,  Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. 

[FR Doc. 07-220 Filed 1-16-07; 4:42 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
#### § 201.17 Written appearance.

Persons who appear at any hearing shall deliver a written notation of appearance to the reporter, stating for whom the appearance is made. The written appearance shall be made a part of the record.
§ 327.46 Evidence supporting a claim. ( a ) The claimant should present any evidence in the claimant's possession that supports the claim. This evidence shall include, if available, statements of witnesses, accident or casualty reports, photographs and drawings.
( b ) Notwithstanding anything in the regulations in this subpart, the claimant shall provide such additional documents and evidence as requested by the Maritime Administration with respect to the claim. Failure to respond to reasonable requests for additional information and documentation can result in a determination that a proper claim has not been submitted.
#### § 170.003 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this subchapter, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50382, Dec. 6, 1989]