alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 31,330

#### The State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. G. L. Lovell, alias Fred Hartman, *Appellant.*

(34 P. 2d 578.)

Opinion filed July 7, 1934.

*R. E. Angle,*of Wichita, for the appellant.

*Roland Boynton,*attorney-general, *Everett E. Steerman,*assistant attorney-general, and *Lester M. Ooodell,*county attorney, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and appeals, presenting two specifications of error for our review.

*8The first of these is that the trial court pronounced judgment and sentence on defendant without first ruling on his motion for a new trial. The assumption that such an incident happened is based on nothing more tangible than that in the arrangement of the papers attached to and filed with the notice of appeal the journal entry of judgment and sentence precedes the journal entry which records the trial court’s ruling on the motion for a new trial.

The next error urged is “that the jurors who tried this appellant heard and listened to two previous trials involving the same facts, circumstances, witnesses, evidences and transactions.” This claim appears to be gratuitous, as it is not established by the record. If it were, the results of a criminal trial and conviction could not be vitiated on that account when counsel for defendant failed to bring that fact to light when the jurors were being examined on their *voir dire,*and before they were sworn to try the cause. The examination of the jurors is not submitted for our review, but we are bound to assume that the usual questions were asked and satisfactorily answered, showing that they had neither formed nor expressed any opinion concerning the guilt or innocence of the defendant. In *State v. Scott,*1 Kan. App. 748, 42 Pac. 264, it was held that a juror who was in the court room and heard the evidence upon a plea in bar was not thereby disqualified to serve as a juror in the main case. In *State v. Jackson,*27 Kan. 581, it was held that a defendant was precluded from raising an objection to the qualification of two jurors after the verdict was rendered when no such objection was raised on their *voir dire.*

See, also, note on disqualification of jurors as ground for new trial in 18 L. R. A. 473*et seq.;*35 C. J. 347; and 16 R. C. L. 286, 287.

No semblance of error appears in this record, and the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 85 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 85

 To reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program through fiscal 
                   year 2006, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. English introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance program through fiscal 
                   year 2006, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

    (a) Assistance for Workers.--Section 245 of the Trade Act of 1974 
(19 U.S.C. 2317) is amended by striking ``the period beginning October 
1, 1998, and ending September 30, 2001,'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 
2006''.
    (b) Assistance for Firms.--Section 256(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 
(19 U.S.C. 2346(b)) is amended by striking ``for the period beginning 
October 1, 1998, and ending September 30, 2001'' and inserting ``for 
each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006''.
    (c) Termination.--Section 285(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
U.S.C. 2771 note) is amended in paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) by striking 
``September 30, 2001'' and inserting ``September 30, 2006''.
    (d) Training Limitation.--Section 250(d)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2330(d)(2)) is amended by striking ``for the period'' 
and all that follows through ``September 30, 2001,''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING PETITIONS FOR WORKER ASSISTANCE.

    Section 223(b)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273(b)(1)) 
is amended by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``two years''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

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 Henry County Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David H. Gill, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company and I, Charles W. Blair, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David H. GillDavid H. Gill, President and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Charles W. Blair, Jr.Charles W. Blair, Jr., EVP and CFO(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


November 13, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 123 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 123

  Amending the rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
inclusion in any legislation of any provision which makes a decrease in 
  Federal income taxes contingent upon another event or circumstance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2001

  Mr. Flake (for himself, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
DeMint, Mr. Otter, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
inclusion in any legislation of any provision which makes a decrease in 
  Federal income taxes contingent upon another event or circumstance.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING INCLUSION IN LEGISLATION OF PROVISION PLACING 
              TRIGGER ON INCOME TAX REDUCTION.

    Clause 5 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(d) It shall not be in order to include in any bill, joint 
resolution, amendment, or conference report any provision which makes 
the taking effect of a decrease in Federal income taxes contingent upon 
another event or circumstance. A point of order against such a 
provision in any such measure may be raised at any time during pendency 
of that measure.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21

     The following were the registrant's subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, 
other than subsidiaries that, if considered in the aggregate as a single 
subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary at such date:


                                         Jurisdiction
                                              of
Name of Subsidiary                       Incorporation
------------------                       -------------
BHC Communications, Inc.                   Delaware
     BHC Network Partner, Inc.             Delaware
     Chris-Craft Television, Inc.          Delaware
          BHC Network Partner II, Inc.     Delaware
          BHC Network Partner III, Inc.    Delaware
          KCOP Television, Inc.            California
          Oregon Television, Inc.          Oregon
     Pinelands, Inc.                       Delaware
     United Television, Inc.               Delaware
          UTV of San Francisco, Inc.       California
          UTV of San Antonio, Inc.         Texas
          United Television Sales, Inc.    Delaware
Chris-Craft Industrial Products, Inc.      Delaware
### MEMORANDUM

DATE: February 5, 2015 T O : Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket id: OAR

- 2013
- 0602 F ROM : Region 5, EPA SUBJECT: February 5, 2015, Conference Call with Wisconsin DNR to Clarify Comments on the

Clean Power Plan


### SUMMARY On February 5, 2015, EPA and Wisconsin held a conference call to clarify comments Wisconsin submitted to EPA on the Clean Power Plan. Wisconsin will provide further detail to EPA regarding the power generation levels and/or retirement of several affected units in Wisconsin in the coming weeks. 

### PARTICIPANTS OAP: Misha Adamantiades, Erika Wilson, Jeremy Mark, Travis Johnson Region 5: Alexis Cain, Erin Newman Wisconsin DNR: Tom Karman, John Loftus, Angela Dickens
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 120

Urging cemeteries to maintain the flags placed on the grave sites of American

veterans on Memorial Day through at least May 31.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 24, 2001

Mr. GRUCCI (for himself and Mr. ENGLISH) submitted the following

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

RESOLUTION

Urging cemeteries to maintain the flags placed on the grave

sites of American veterans on Memorial Day through

at least May 31.

Whereas Decoration Day (now Memorial Day), which became

a Federal holiday in 1888, was established to allow Civil

War veterans who were employed by the Federal Government to pay their respects to those who gave their lives

in the conflict, without losing a day’s pay;

Whereas it was the intent of Congress that Memorial Day be

a time to reflect on our hard earned freedom and to pay

our respects to those men and women who gave their

lives to preserve that freedom;

Whereas, in 1968, Memorial Day was changed by law from

its traditional date of May 30th to the last Monday of

May;
2

•HRES 120 IH

Whereas the true meaning of Memorial Day has been too

often lost to commercialism, leisure, and recreation;

Whereas, on Memorial Day, our Nation’s flag is placed on

the graves of our fallen veterans to honor their bravery

and supreme sacrifice;

Whereas many cemeteries remove flags from the graves of

veterans immediately after the observation of Memorial

Day; and

Whereas there is no more fitting remembrance of veterans

and their service to this Nation than the flag upon their

place of rest: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives —

2 (1) urges all cemeteries to maintain the Amer3 ican flags placed on the graves of veterans on Memo4 rial Day until at least May 31, the day after the

5 original date of Decoration Day, except in the case

6 of inclement weather; and

7 (2) encourages all cemeteries to create partner8 ships with local veterans’ organizations to allow vet9 erans to respectfully assist in the removal of the

10 flags.

Æ
§ 375.509 How must I determine the weight of a shipment? ( a ) You must weigh the shipment by using one of the following two methods: ( 1 ) *First method—origin weigh.* You determine the difference between the tare weight of the vehicle before loading at the origin of the shipment and the gross weight of the same vehicle after loading the shipment.
( 2 ) *Second method—back weigh.* You determine the difference between the gross weight of the vehicle with the shipment loaded and the tare weight of the same vehicle after you unload the shipment.
( b ) The following three conditions must exist for both the tare and gross weighings: ( 1 ) The vehicle must have installed or loaded all pads, dollies, hand trucks, ramps, and other equipment required in the transportation of the shipment.
( 2 ) The driver and other persons must be off the vehicle at the time of either weighing.
( 3 ) The fuel tanks on the vehicle must be full at the time of each weighing, or, in the alternative, when you use the *first method—origin weigh,* in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, where the tare weighing is the first weighing performed, you must refrain from adding fuel between the two weighings.
( c ) You may detach the trailer of a tractor-trailer vehicle combination from the tractor and have the trailer weighed separately at each weighing provided the length of the scale platform is adequate to accommodate and support the entire trailer at one time.
( d ) You must use the net weight of shipments transported in containers. You must calculate the difference between the tare weight of the container (including all pads, blocking and bracing used in the transportation of the shipment) and the gross weight of the container with the shipment loaded in the container.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10603 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARRYL RAY NEWTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CR-71-2-A)

- - - - - - - - - - November 29, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Darryl Ray Newton appeals the revocation

of his supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Newton

admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his

supervised release by using drugs, and his urinalysis test was
positive for drugs. He was therefore subject to the mandatory

revocation provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). S ee United States v.

Smith
, 978 F.2d 181 (5 th Cir. 1992). The district court noted

New ton’s participation in drug treatment programs but found that

his response to those programs was not favorable. S ee 18 U.S.C.2

§ 3583(d). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

revoking Newton’s supervised release. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); see

United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNASA commercial programsHighlights of NASA-sponsored and assisted commercial space activities of 1989 are presented. Industrial R and D in space, centers for the commercial development of space, and new cooperative agreements are addressed in the U.S. private sector in space section. In the building U.S. competitiveness through technology section, the following topics are presented: (1) technology utilization as a national priority; (2) an exploration of benefits; and (3) honoring Apollo-Era spinoffs. International and domestic R and D trends, and the space sector are discussed in the section on selected economic indicators. Other subjects included in this report are: (1) small business innovation; (2) budget highlights and trends; (3) commercial programs management; and (4) the commercial programs advisory committee.Document ID19910009581Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryAdministration And ManagementReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:103410NASA-TM-103410Accession Number91N18894Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910009581.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1293.html[7/22/2015 10:02:49 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-ad5o

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1293

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Sheryl Philben

General Comment

I can provide for my own retirement.
Exhibit 10.35
                                                                -------------

                            AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
                        CARRINGTON LABORATORIES, INC.
                         EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


      Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14 thereof, the Carrington
 Laboratories, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan is hereby amended in the
 following respect only:

      Effective January 1, 2006, Section 8 of the Plan is hereby amended by
 restatement in its entirety to read as follows:

      Section 8.  Option Price.  The purchase price per share of Common
 Stock under each installment of each Option shall equal to 95% of the Fair
 Market Value per share of Common Stock on the date on which the installment
 is exercised.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed this 29th of December,
 2005 to be effective as of January 1, 2006.



                                    CARRINGTON LABORATORIES, INC.


                                    By_________________________________
                                      Name: Robert W. Schnitzius
                                      Title: Chief Financial Officer
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 191

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations

should immediately transfer to the Israeli Government an unedited and

uncensored videotape that contains images which could provide material

evidence for the investigation into the incident on October 7, 2000,

when Hezbollah forces abducted 3 Israeli Defense Force soldiers, Adi

Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, and Omar Souad.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 12, 2001

Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. GILMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mrs. LOWEY,

Mr. CANTOR, MR. JOHNSON of Illinois, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. SIMMONS,

Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. WEXLER, Mr.

SHIMKUS, Mr. PHELPS, Mr. CRANE, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. WELLER, Mr.

NADLER, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr.

MCGOVERN, Mr. SCHIFF, and Mr. GRUCCI) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that

the United Nations should immediately transfer to the

Israeli Government an unedited and uncensored videotape that contains images which could provide material

evidence for the investigation into the incident on October 7, 2000, when Hezbollah forces abducted 3 Israeli

Defense Force soldiers, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham,

and Omar Souad.
2

•HRES 191 IH

Whereas on October 7, 2000, Hezbollah forces illegally

crossed the Israeli border with Lebanon and kidnapped

3 Israli Defense Force soldiers, Adi Avitan, Binyamin

Avraham, and Omar Souad;

Whereas 9 months after the kidnapping, Hezbollah released

no information as to the whereabouts and conditions of

these soldiers;

Whereas the events leading up to, surrounding, and immediately following the kidnapping remain unknown;

Whereas after long denial the United Nations admitted to

possession of a videotape that contains images which

could provide material evidence for the investigation into

the incident on October 7, 2000;

Whereas this videotape would help to assess the conditions of

the soldiers and assist in the investigation to determine

the identities of the kidnappers and their methods; and

Whereas to date the United Nations is reluctant to transfer

an uncensored form of the videotape to Israeli Government authorities investigating this incident: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the United Nations should immediately

3 transfer an unedited and uncensored form of the videotape

4 that contains images which could provide material evi5 dence for the investigation into the incident on October

6 7, 2000, when Hezbollah forces abducted 3 Israeli Defense

7 Force soldiers, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, and Omar

8 Souad, as well as any other material evidence the United
3

•HRES 191 IH

1 Nations may possess, to the Israeli Government to assist

2 its investigation of this incident.

Æ
555 Airport Blvd., 5th Fl.

Burlingame, CA 94010

Direct Dial: (650) 762-7394

Direct Fax: (650) 648-0489

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com

May 12, 2014

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Virgin America Inc. for Renewal of Exemptions (Dockets

OST-2010-0168, -0169, -0170)

Dear Mr. Kruger,

On May 8, 2014, Virgin America Inc. filed an Application for Renewal of Exemptions in 

the above-referenced dockets. 

We have completed polling on this application and no carrier has objected to the grant of 

Virgin America’s Application. We respectfully request that the Department proceed to renew 

Virgin America’s exemption authorities as soon as possible. 

Respectfully submitted,

 Barbara Russell

 Associate General Counsel

Virgin America Inc.

555 Airport Blvd., Second Floor

Burlingame, CA 94010

(650) 762-7394 (phone)

(650) 762-7004 (fax)

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com 

cc: service list
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1355.html[7/23/2015 6:18:06 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvk-y7ut

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1355

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

My retirement is my business please leave things alone. People aren't so stupid that they can't do things for

 themselves.