alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ephram *v.*State.

(In Banc.

June 14, 1948.)

[35 So. (2d) 708.

No. 36770.]

Mrs. E. R. Arrington, of Hazlehurst, for appellant.

*880Greek L. Rice, Attorney General, by Geo. H. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

McGehee, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal is from a conviction of grand larceny. The proof on behalf of the State discloses that the Chevrolet truck which is alleged to have been stolen was the property of John D. Burney; that his son Charles Burney had been using the truck in connection with some work in which he was then engaged; that the appellant J. P. Ephram was employed in this work by the said Charles Burney, and had driven this truck to the place of business of the B. and B. Implement Company at Crystal Springs where it was left during the day in charge of the *881said Implement Company, and with the ignition key .left therein. That this was done with the knowledge and consent of the said Charles Burney; that thereupon the said Burney carried the appellant to the town of Terry, where he worked during that day in company with other employees; that when the day’s work was done the said Burney carried the appellant back to Crystal Springs in a car, and let him out at a filling station across the street from the said Implement Company; and that thereafter the appellant went to where the Chevrolet truck had been left that morning, drove it a short distance to his home near G-allman, then took other passengers into the truck and drove it back through Crystal Springs and up the highway to the Green-Parrot; and that he wrecked and almost demolished the same while on route back to Crystal Springs.

Although the appellant did not testify in his own behalf, it appears from the evidence that when he was questioned by the owner of the truck, John D. Burney, and by a deputy sheriff, he freely and voluntarily admitted that he had used the truck, but said, in the language of the witnesses, that “Charles let him have it”. He had given his fellow passengers the same explanation as to why he was driving the truck that night.

It is not expressly denied that the appellant had stated to Charles Burney during the day that he wanted to go to his home near Gallman that evening to get some clothes, but Charles Burney testified that he did not give him permission to use the truck, but admitted that he did not tell him not to use it. At any rate, the proof in the case does not establish any higher offense than that of trespass less than larceny, there being nothing in the evidence to indicate that the appellant intended to steal the truck. He was returning with it when he had the wreck and he evidently intended all the while to carry it back to where he got it, and to leave it there. Most assuredly he would not have carried his neighbors along as passangers if he had not intended to return with the truck.

*882Therefore, the granting of instructions to the jury such as would permit a conviction of grand larceny was erroneous and the cause must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.
**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 Highland Hospitality Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James L. Francis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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 operationsof the Company. 

 

Date: November 15, 2004
(Reap. Dec. 9281)

#### W. C. Sullivan & Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 10188, etc.

(Decided December 29, 1958)

*Wallace & Schwartz*(Barnes, *Richardson & Colburn*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule *“A,”*attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> *436IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on Schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was the appraised value less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases, and that there was no higher foreign value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the issue is the same as in United States *v.*Nelson Bead Company, 42 G. C. P. A. (Customs) 175, C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals for reappraisement are submitted on this stipulation.

In the cited case, our appellate court held that a buying commission paid to a commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase, packing, and shipping of the merchandise was not part of statutory export value.

On the stipulated facts, as hereinabove set forth, and following the cited authority on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise covered by these appeals for reappraisement is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value for the merchandise is in each instance the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6112]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Notification of 2007 American Buffalo Gold Proof One-Ounce Coin 
Pricing

    Summary: The United States Mint is establishing prices for the 2007 
American Buffalo Gold Proof One-Ounce Coin.
    Pursuant to the authority that 31 U.S.C. 5111(a) and 5112(q) grant 
the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue gold coins, and to 
prepare and distribute numismatic items, the United States Mint will 
mint and issue 2007 American Buffalo Gold Proof One-Ounce Coins. In 
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 9701(b)(2)(B), the United States Mint is 
changing the price of these coins to reflect the increase in value of 
the precious metal content of the coins--the result of increases in the 
market price of gold.
    Accordingly, effective upon the introduction of the 2007 American 
Buffalo Gold Proof One-Ounce Coin, the United States Mint will sell 
these coins at the following price:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Description                             Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Buffalo Gold Proof One Ounce Coin.................      $825.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For Further Information Contact: Gloria C. Eskridge, Associate 
Director for Sales and Marketing; United States Mint; 801 Ninth Street, 
NW.; Washington , DC 20220; or call 202-354-7500.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 5111, 5112 & 9701

    Dated: March 28, 2007.
Edmund C. Moy,
Director, United States Mint.
 [FR Doc. E7-6112 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-02-P
EXHIBIT 10.17

                                   RESOLUTIONS

                                     OF THE

                               BOARD OF DIRECTORS

                                       OF

                        PHYAMERICA PHYSICIAN GROUP, INC.

                                December 20, 2000

         WHEREAS, the Company currently has in place the following stock option
or purchase plans: (i) the 1991 Stock Option Plan of Coastal  Healthcare  Group,
Inc.,  (ii) the Coastal  Healthcare  Group,  Inc.  Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
(iii) the Coastal  Healthcare  Group, Inc.  Independent  Directors' Stock Option
Plan,  and (iv) the 1987  Non-qualified  Stock Option Plan of Coastal  Physician
Group,  Inc.  Amended and  Restated  as of March 23, 1994 (as amended  March 19,
1996) (collectively, the "Plans"); and

         WHEREAS, the price at which the stock of the Company are currently
trading is such that the opportunity to acquire stock no longer serves as an
inducement to employees or Directors or encourages participation in the Plans;
and
         WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the costs of maintaining and
administering the Plans outweigh any benefits to the Company, its Directors or
employees and that therefore, it is in the best interests of the Company to
issue no further shares under the Plans and to terminate such Plans;

         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 1991 Stock Option Plan of
Coastal Healthcare Group, Inc. is hereby terminated, as permitted by Section 12
thereof, such termination to be effective without the approval of the
stockholders of the Company; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Coastal Healthcare Group, Inc. Employee
Stock Purchase Plan is hereby terminated as is permitted by its terms, and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Coastal Healthcare Group, Inc. Independent
Directors' Stock Option Plan is hereby terminated as permitted by Section 9(a)
thereof, and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE 1987 Non-qualified Stock Option Plan of
Coastal Physician Group, Inc. Amended and Restated as of March 23, 1994 (as
amended March 19, 1996) is hereby terminated, as permitted by Section 11
thereof.
Exhibit 32.3

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 on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the Company) for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel Meyers, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

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

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



|                    |  |                                                              
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 16, 2011 |  | /S/ DANIEL MEYERS                                            
|                    |  | Daniel Meyers Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by The First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
No. 64238.

protest 330057-K (Tampa).

#### Miami Importing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of carrizo baskets the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Chester K. Stoner*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2083), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROOSEVELT ROBINSON, Specialist Four, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 343, 38 CMR 141

No. 20,373

December 22, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Captain Anthony F. Cilluffo*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain Paul A. Bible*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Kilday, Judge:

The appellant was arraigned before a general court-martial convened at Kai-serslautern, Germany, charged with the possession, attempted sale, conspiracy to sell, and sale of marihuana, in violation of Articles 134, 80, 81, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 934, 880, 881, and 934, respectively. He pleaded guilty to all charges and the specifications thereunder. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for three years. The convening *344authority approved a sentence providing for confinement at hard labor for fifteen months and forfeiture of $37.00 per month for fifteen months. A board of review in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence. This Court has granted the appellant’s petition to consider the question of:

> “WHETHER ADDITIONAL CHARGE I IS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AS CONTEMPLATED.”

This issue arises because the specification under Additional Charge I alleges the attempted sale of marihuana without the inclusion of words denoting criminality. This same omission was considered with regard to an identically worded specification in the case of United States v Brice, 17 USCMA 336, 38 CMR 134. We there determined that a specification is defective when so drawn.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review as to Additional Charge I is reversed. The findings thereon are set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. The board of review may order a new trial on a properly drawn specification or reassess the sentence on the remaining charges and their specifications.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(concurring in part and dissenting in part) :

I concur in part and dissent in part.

This case was tried with United States v Brice, 17 USCMA 336, 38 CMR 134, this day decided. For the reasons set forth in that opinion, I agree that the specification of Additional Charge I does not allege the offense of attempted sale of marihuana. Though not granted, the case likewise involves the issue of the convening authority purporting to convert a reduction in confinement which he was bound to make under a pretrial agreement into forfeitures of pay. For the reasons stated in *Brice,*supra, I am of the view that such “commutation” is unlawful and that the sentence, as approved, exceeds the pretrial agreement. Accordingly, I register my disagreement.

I would return the case to the board of review for reduction of the sentence to the limits of the pretrial agreement as well as reassessment in light of the eliminated charge.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 84 

To prevent agencies from using unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct 

surveillance of United States citizens, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prevent agencies from using unmanned aerial vehicles 

to conduct surveillance of United States citizens, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Buzz Off Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHI6 CLES. 

7 (a) SURVEILLANCE.—A Federal law enforcement 

8 agency may not use an unmanned aerial vehicle to inten9 tionally conduct surveillance of, gather evidence or collect 

10 information about, or photographically or electronically 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 84 IH

1 record a specifically targeted United States citizen or the 

2 specifically targeted private property of a United States 

3 citizen. 

4 (b) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), a 

5 Federal law enforcement agency may use an unmanned 

6 aerial vehicle to photograph, or otherwise record a United 

7 States citizen for the purposes of publishing or otherwise 

8 publicly disseminating such photograph or recording if the 

9 agency obtains the written consent of such United States 

10 citizen. 

11 (c) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall not apply 

12 in the case that— 

13 (1) the President, acting through the Secretary 

14 of Homeland Security, authorizes use of an un15 manned aerial vehicle to conduct surveillance if the 

16 Secretary certifies in writing under oath that the 

17 surveillance is necessary to counter a high risk of a 

18 terrorist attack by a specific individual or organiza19 tion; or 

20 (2) the head of a Federal law enforcement 

21 agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a 

22 judge authorizing the use of an unmanned aerial ve23 hicle. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1





Certifications











I, Ryan C. Farris, certify that:





1I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ally Master Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;





3Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and U.S. Bank Trust National Association.





Date: March 25, 2019





/s/ Ryan C. Farris





Ryan C. Farris


President, Ally Wholesale Enterprises LLC, as Depositor


(Senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)





























1
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Orlando, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Holdings LLC; 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 controls andprocedures 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 such evaluation;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 (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; 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 who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: October 30, 2006       By: /s/ Anthony J. Orlando         Anthony J. Orlando    Chief Executive Officer and President
44
No. 53626.

protest 127853-K (New York).

#### Wm. Popkin *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.