alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A89A1760.

#### DOUGLAS v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 98)

Carley, Chief Judge.

After a jury trial, appellant was found guilty of theft by receiving stolen property, giving a false name and possession of tools for the commission of a crime. He appeals from the judgments of conviction and sentences entered by the trial court on the jury’s guilty verdicts.

Appellant enumerates only the general grounds. Construed most favorably for the State, the evidence shows the following: Police officers stopped appellant after observing him driving a stolen automobile at an excessive rate of speed. The automobile’s steering column and radio evidenced damage which had not been present before the theft. In addition, the vehicle was being operated with no key in the ignition. Appellant and the other occupant of the vehicle, Calvin Sims, were arrested. The officers discovered four knobs from the vehicle’s radio in appellant’s pocket and a flat-head screwdriver in Sims’ pocket. Flat-head screwdrivers are commonly used to break into vehicles and then to start the engine by breaking into the steering column. Although appellant told police that Sims had picked him up in the vehicle, he admitted that Sims had told him that the vehicle had been stolen. Appellant acknowledged that he knew something was “fishy” when Sims began to remove the radio. Appellant also admitted that he had lied to the officers about his name.

On this evidence, a rational trior of fact could reasonably have found appellant guilty of theft by receiving stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt. “ ‘While proof of knowledge that the property is stolen is an essential, “(t)his guilty knowledge may be inferred from *183circumstances which would excite suspicion in the mind of an ordinary prudent man. (Cits.)” [Cit.]’ [Cit.]” *Parrott v. State,*188 Ga. App. 564, 566 (373 SE2d 828) (1988).

Decided January 8, 1990.

*Kenneth D. Feldman,*for appellant.

*Thomas J. Charron, District Attorney, Debra H. Bernes, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Although the screwdriver was found in the immediate possession of Sims, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a rational trior of fact to find appellant was likewise guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of possession of tools for commission of a crime. See generally *Solomon v. State,*180 Ga. App. 636 (1) (350 SE2d 35) (1986).

The evidence that appellant admitted giving the police a false name “was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that [appellant] violated [OCGA § 16-10-25 beyond a reasonable doubt].” *Johnson v. State,*149 Ga. App. 273, 274 (1) (253 SE2d 889) (1979). See also *Mallory v. State,*164 Ga. App. 569, 570 (4) (298 SE2d 290) (1982). Compare *Preston v. State,*257 Ga. 42, 44 (1) (354 SE2d 135) (1987).

*Judgments affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          28,838
<SECURITIES>                                    77,241
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                       615
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               132,400
<PP&E>                                          12,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,435
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,940
<SALES>                                         80,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,041
<CGS>                                           21,326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   160
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,493)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,136
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,471
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,665
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,665
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
```

[111th Congress Public Law 82]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 123 STAT. 2140]]

Public Law 111-82
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To authorize major medical facility leases for the Department of 
          Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2010, and for other 
             purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 26, 2009 -  [S. 1717]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2010 MAJOR MEDICAL 
                              FACILITY LEASES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the 
following fiscal year 2010 major medical facility leases at the 
locations specified, in an amount not to exceed the amount shown for 
that location:
            (1) Anderson, South Carolina, Outpatient Clinic, in an 
        amount not to exceed $4,774,000.
            (2) Atlanta, Georgia, Specialty Care Clinic, in an amount 
        not to exceed $5,172,000.
            (3) Bakersfield, California, Community Based Outpatient 
        Clinic, in an amount not to exceed $3,464,000.
            (4) Birmingham, Alabama, Annex Clinic and Parking Garage, in 
        an amount not to exceed $6,279,000.
            (5) Butler, Pennsylvania, Health Care Center, in an amount 
        not to exceed $16,482,000.
            (6) Charlotte, North Carolina, Health Care Center, in an 
        amount not to exceed $30,457,000.
            (7) Fayetteville, North Carolina, Health Care Center, in an 
        amount not to exceed $23,487,000.
            (8) Huntsville, Alabama, Outpatient Clinic Expansion, in an 
        amount not to exceed $4,374,000.
            (9) Kansas City, Kansas, Community Based Outpatient Clinic, 
        in an amount not to exceed $4,418,000.
            (10) Loma Linda, California, Health Care Center, in an 
        amount not to exceed $31,154,000.
            (11) McAllen, Texas, Outpatient Clinic, in an amount not to 
        exceed $4,444,000.
            (12) Monterey, California, Health Care Center, in an amount 
        not to exceed $11,628,000.
            (13) Montgomery, Alabama, Health Care Center, in an amount 
        not to exceed $9,943,000.
            (14) Tallahassee, Florida, Outpatient Clinic, in an amount 
        not to exceed $13,165,000.
            (15) Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Health Care Center, in 
        an amount not to exceed $26,986,000.

    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2010 
or the year in which funds are appropriated for the

[[Page 123 STAT. 2141]]

Medical Facilities account $196,227,000 for the leases authorized in 
subsection (a).

    Approved October 26, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1717:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
            Sept. 25, considered and passed Senate.
            Oct. 7, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
No. 58314.

protests 170349-K, etc. (Duluth).

#### F. E. Macartney *v.*United States,

*336Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel “that the said lumber was in fact Western white spruce lumber,” the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

January 8, 1952

No. 56243.

protest 157833-K (New York).

#### B. Westergaard & Co. *v.*United States,

*364Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cheese knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. Westergaard & Co.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 77, C. D. 1302), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

June 16, 1965

No. 69378.

#### Import-Export Service of New Jersey *v.*United States,

protest 58/21601 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic tennis racket strings the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61832, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the First Division,

May 8, 1963

No. 67701.

#### Canton Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/8508, etc. (New York).

*294Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ballet dancing figures on jewelry boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66652, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 56241.

protests 151796-K, etc. (New York).

#### F. H. Paul & Stein Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
##### 



Exhibit 10.36
 THE GREENBRIER COMPANIES
 Amendment No. 1
to
2005 Stock Incentive Plan
  1.
    
    Director Restricted Shares. Section 6.1 of the Plan is amended to
increase the amount of the annual automatic award of restricted stock to non-employee
directors from $42,500 in value of stock to $60,000 per year, effective as of January
2006.2.
    
    Payment of Par Value for Shares. The Plan is amended to delete the
requirement that the par value for shares purchased under the Plan be paid in cash.
Specifically, Section 7.5 is amended to delete the second sentence of that Section, and
the second sentence of Section 9.2 is amended by deleting the phrase ..., for the
amount in excess of the par value of such newly issued Restricted Shares,....3.
    
    Effective Date. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Amendment
No. 1 shall be effective as of the date of approval by the Board of Directors. Except
as hereby amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
 Approved by the Board of Directors June 30, 2005
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                              THE DIAL CORPORATION
                                   (Delaware)

                        List of Significant Subsidiaries

         None of the Company's subsidiaries constitute "significant
subsidiaries" within the meaning of Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.
Exhibit 99.8

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 Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (the Company) on Form
40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Hendry, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
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 to the best of 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David Hendry       
|    |  | David Hendry           
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer

March 15, 2017
# L_2023195EN.01005501.xml

| 3.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 195/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 195/55

---

Corrigendum to Guideline (EU) 2022/1378 of the European Central Bank of 28 July 2022 amending Guideline 2008/596/EC on the management of the foreign reserve assets of the European Central Bank by the national central banks and the legal documentation for operations involving such assets (ECB/2008/5) (ECB/2022/28)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 206, 8 August 2022
  )

On the cover page, in the title:

for:

‘
  Guideline (EU) 2022/1378 of the European Central Bank of 28 July 2022 amending Guideline 2008/596/EC on the management of the foreign reserve assets of the European Central Bank by the national central banks and the legal documentation for operations involving such assets (ECB/2008/5) (ECB/2022/28)

  ’,

read:

‘
  Guideline (EU) 2022/1378 of the European Central Bank of 28 July 2022 amending Guideline ECB/2008/5 on the management of the foreign reserve assets of the European Central Bank by the national central banks and the legal documentation for operations involving such assets (ECB/2022/28)

  ’.

On page 55, in the title:

for:

‘
  GUIDELINE (EU) 2022/1378 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 28 July 2022

amending Guideline 2008/596/EC on the management of the foreign reserve assets of the European Central Bank by the national central banks and the legal documentation for operations involving such assets (ECB/2008/5) (ECB/2022/28)

  ’,

read:

‘
  GUIDELINE (EU) 2022/1378 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 28 July 2022

amending Guideline ECB/2008/5 on the management of the foreign reserve assets of the European Central Bank by the national central banks and the legal documentation for operations involving such assets (ECB/2022/28)

  ’.

---
A89A1672.

#### MOSS v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 268)

Birdsong, Judge.

Victor Leroy Moss appeals from his convictions, following a bench trial, of driving under the influence and driving without insurance. Moss enumerates as error the entering of a conviction when the weight of the evidence did not support the guilty verdict, the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, and the application of OCGA § 40-6-391 to the evidence. The basis for all three enumerations of error is Moss’ contention that a conviction for driving under the influence must be based on evidence that the defendant actually operated his vehicle in an unsafe or less safe manner, and on other evidence showing that he was under the influence of alcohol when he did so. *Held:*

The trial was not transcribed and, while a transcript of evidence from recollection pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-41 (g) may have been prepared, that transcript was not provided with the record submitted to this court. Further, Moss’ brief cannot be used to add evidence to the record *(Leathers v. Timex Corp.,*174 Ga. App. 430, 431 (330 SE2d 102); see *Patterson v. State,*256 Ga. 740 (2) (353 SE2d 338)), and we cannot consider factual allegations in the brief that are not supported by the record. *Behar v. Aero Med Intl.,*185 Ga. App. 845 (366 SE2d 223). Accordingly, Moss has failed to satisfy his burden by showing error affirmatively in the record. *Moye v. State,*127 Ga. App. 338, 341 (193 SE2d 562).

Moreover, Moss’ arguments are incorrect as a matter of law. *182OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1) makes it unlawful for a person to “drive or be in actual physical control of any moving vehicle while: Under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it is less safe for the person to drive. ...” There is no requirement that the person actually commit an unsafe act. See *Williams v. State,*190 Ga. App. 361, 362 (378 SE2d 886); *Campbell v. State,*189 Ga. App. 303 (375 SE2d 654); *Boose v. State,*185 Ga. App. 728 (365 SE2d 534); *Howell v. State,*179 Ga. App. 632, 634 (347 SE2d 358).

Decided January 8, 1990.

*Randall G. Levine,*for appellant.

*Spencer Lawton, Jr., District Attorney, Leonard Geldon, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Deen, P. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.*
Before the First Division,

July 11, 1949

No. 53372.

protests 35944-K, etc. (New York).

#### W. T. Grant Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 99.11


Ref.:1772




March 17, 2011




Penn West Petroleum Ltd.


200, 207 – 9th Avenue SW


Calgary, AB   T2P 1K3




Re: Engineer's Letter of Consent - Penn West Petroleum Ltd.




We refer to our report dated February 11, 2011 and effective as of December 31, 2010, evaluating the crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids reserves and the net present value of future net revenue attributable to certain of the oil and natural gas assets of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. effective as at December 31, 2010 (the "Report").




We hereby consent to the use of our name and to the use of our Report in Penn West Petroleum Ltd.’s:




(i) Annual Report (Form 40-F) for the year ended December 31, 2010;


(ii) Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-171675);


(iii) press release regarding 2010 year-end results;


(iv) Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2010, including but not limited to, disclosures in accordance with National Instrument 51-101; and


(v) Supplementary Oil and Gas Information (SFAS 69)




(collectively, the "Disclosure Documents").




We have read the Disclosure Documents and have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that is derived from the Report, or that is within our knowledge as a result of the services performed by us in connection with the Report.





Sincerely,SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITED/s/ Robert N. JohnsonRobert N. Johnson, P.Eng.Vice-President, Engineering and Director





Enclosure(s)


RNJ:nmt
No. 60344.

protests 264189-K, etc. (New York).

#### Novelty Veiling Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 52086.

protests 612026-G, etc. (New York).

#### A. S. Herrmann, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Sandor Grosz, the Chief Financial Officer of Technology Solutions Company, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Technology Solutions Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.         Date: May 15, 2007  By: /s/ SANDOR GROSZ         Sandor Grosz        Chief Financial Officer
No. 52112.

petition 6321-R (San Juan).

#### Asociacion Azucarera Cooperativa Lafayette *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From.an examination of the record the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 report of SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 25, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Stacy M. Hodges, Chief Financial 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, to my knowledge 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |             |  |  |  |                        
|----- |  | ----------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: |  | May 4, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/ Stacy M. Hodges    
|      |  |             |  |  |  | Stacy M. Hodges        
|      |  |             |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is
being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after
the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.