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

In Banc.

Nov. 8, 1948.

(37 So. (2d) 310)

*281L. L. Forman, for appellant.

*282George H. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*283Alexander, J.

Appellant appeals from a verdict and judgment of conviction for murder in which a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The assignments of error include (1) that the verdict is against the law and the evidence; (2) that certain evidence was improperly introduced upon behalf of the State; and (3) the granting and refusing of certain instructions.

We dispose of the first contention at once. The confession of the defendant, which we hold can be properly admitted, the facts of which were corroborated by several witnesses, discloses a case of deliberate murder. Under point two, the objection is directed chiefly • to the conduct of the special trial judge, who, on several occasions, interpolated questions during the examination of the State’s witnesses. Had these interpositions been made on behalf of the defendant, or to clarify uncertainties in defense testimony, it would have lessened the risk of impropriety.

The purpose of the learned special judge is undoubtedly above censure. That his course was intended to be helpful, however, is not as controlling as the fact that it was probably helpful only to the State. Cf. Breland v. State, 180 Miss. 830, 178 So. 817, and authorities therein cited.

We do not set out the several excerpts from the Court’s personal examinations since they are not such as would be reproduced in another case.  Suffice it that, while we are moved to a disapproval of this practice, we find the guilt of the defendant so evident that no reasonable jury could have reached any other verdict.

It is true that  the defendant obeyed an impulse oftimes acknowledged by the informal verdict of a community as conforming to an unwritten code, given sanction not by law but by the primal forces of outraged honor, wherein the futility of peaceable abatement leads to the destruction of the guilty actor and stimulates ir*284resistable emotions of revenge. Sncli consideration, made the subject of argument by counsel in the briefs here, and doubtless before the trial judge, are materials for an appeal not to the courts but to the forum of popular sympathy where affectations of gallantry and outraged dignity are often vouchsafed a hearing. As stated, the homicide was not committed in the heat of passion, nor in self-defense, nor upon sudden provocation. It was murder or nothing. That it was the product of multiplied instances of grievous personal wrongs whose accumulated weight tipped the scales of defendant’s indecision toward a settled purpose to kill his oppressor serves to emphasize the element of deliberation. Having sought to take the law into his own hands, the law must in turn take the defendant into its own.

We find no error in the instructions for the State. In all of them, the jury is authorized to accept an alternate verdict of manslaughter. We find no reversible error in the refusal of instructions requested for the defendant.

Affirmed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: Ex parte Jesse Andrew Lopez

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 5 8 6

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 7

- DCR

- 077033

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

Represented by appointed counsel, a ppellant

, Jesse Andrew L opez , filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s order denying his pretrial habeas corpus application. We abated the appeal

, remanded the case

, and direct ed the trial court to determine whether appellant wished to waive counsel on appeal and should be allow ed to proceed pro se after being properly admonished

. On March 6, 2018, the trial court clerk filed a supplemen tal clerk’s record that includes a signed “Waiver of Attorney under Art. 1.051(g), T.C.C.P.

, ” and the trial court’s February 28, 2018 order

, stating that appellant is

“ responsible [to] file a brief and represent himself on appeal. ” We reinstated the appeal, directed the Clerk of this Court to file appellant’s pro se “Supplementation/Correction of Appellant’s Brief” and “Supplementation to Appellant’s Brief,” and set a due date for the State’s brief

. On April 10, 2018, we granted the State’s “First M otion for E xtension of T ime ” and extended the time to file the State’s brief to June 8, 2018, with no further extensions. On April 23, 2018, appellant filed a “Response and Objection to ‘State’s First Motion for Extension of Time’” in w hich he requests that the Court deny the State’s extension request
, rescind any order granting the requested extension and decide the appeal without a State’s brief, or grant the State an extension of less than sixty days

. Appellant’s motion is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38. 6(d) . The State’s brief remains due on June 8, 2018, with no further extensions

. In connection with his “Response and Objection,” appellant has filed a “Request for Judicial Notice,” asking that we “take notice of the record” in thi s appeal

, and a “Motion for Suspension of Rules,” asking that we suspend Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.3(a)(1), 9.4(f), and 9.5(a). T he “Motion for Suspension of Rule s ” and “Request for Judicial Notice” are dismissed as moot

.It is so ORDERED.

Ju dge’s signature: / s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: M ay 17, 2018
Archive

*CONSUMER TIPS:*PHONE AND MAIL ORDER COMPLAINTSOffice of Consumer AffairsU.S. Department of CommerceWashington, D.C. 20230

Shopping by phone and mail saves time and energy.  To prevent and solve problems, follow these tips:
**KNOW YOUR RIGHTS**

**Mail or Telephone Order Rule**--This rule applies to telephone orders, including orders by computer andfax machine.  The rule doesn't apply to photo finishing, seeds and plants, magazine subscriptions afterthe first issue, or COD orders.  Allow the company its stated delivery time before you complain.  Ifyour package hasn't arrived by that time, you have certain rights under the Federal Trade Commission's(FTC) mail or telephone order rule.  For information on the rule, check the FTC's webiste atwww.ftc.gov.  If no delivery time is given, the firm must:
-  send your order within 30 days;    mail you a notice about the shipping delay if it can't meet the promised delivery date and promptlyrefund your money if you do not agree to the delay.
**Fair Credit Billing Act**--If you paid for your order by credit card, this act may protect you against someproblems.  You don't have to pay the amount of the bill that you dispute until the problem is resolved,but only if you explain the problem in writing to your credit card company within 60 days of receivingyour bill.

**Unordered Merchandise Statute**--This law prevents companies from mailing unordered products andthen demanding payment.  If you get something in the mail that you didn't order, you can keep it as afree gift.

**Negative Option Rule**--Records, books, and tapes are often sold to consumers who join  negative optionclubs.  Members usually get an initial offer, such as three books for $1, if they agree to buy more.  TheFTC's rule requires the club to give consumers at least 10 days to reject the monthly or periodic choice.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MELISSA SEMINARA AND CARMELO SEMINARA,

Petitioners

v.

STUART DERSHAW, M.D. JOHN STACK, M.D., HOLY REDEEMER WOMEN'S CARE OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY,

AND HOLY REDEEMER HEALTH

SYSTEM D/B/A HOLY REDEEMER HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 610 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
Exhibit 32(a)



TXU ENERGY COMPANY LLC

Certificate Pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO



The undersigned, M. S. Greene, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive of TXU Energy Company LLC (the Company), DOES HEREBY
CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed
this 10th day of November, 2005.



/s/ M. S. GreeneName:  M. S. GreeneTitle:    Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TXU Energy Company LLC and will be retained by TXU Energy Company LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.105.1

SCHEDULE IDENTIFYING SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL AGREEMENT(S)  TO EXHIBIT 10.105

Pledge Agreement, dated as of August 17, 2000, between Midwest Generation,
LLC and Citibank, N.A.

                  This Pledge Agreement differs from Exhibit 10.105 in the
following respects:

         In Section 1 - Definitions, under the definition of
         "Intercompany Note" "$499,450,800" is replaced by "$369,961,200."

Pledge Agreement, dated as of August 17, 2000, between Midwest Generation, LLC
and Citibank, N.A.

                  This Pledge Agreement differs from Exhibit 10.105 in the
following respects:

         In Section 1 - Definitions, under the definition of
         "Intercompany Note" "$499,450,800" is replaced by "$285,849,200."

Pledge Agreement, dated as of August 17, 2000, between Midwest Generation, LLC
and Citibank, N.A.

                  This Pledge Agreement differs from Exhibit 10.105 in the
following respects:

         In Section 1 - Definitions, under the definition of
         "Intercompany Note" "$499,450,800" is replaced by "$211,738,800."
Case No. 14,538.

#### UNITED STATES v. BASSETT.

[Hoff. Land Cas. 112.] 1

District Court, N. D. California.

Dec. Term, 1855.2

Mexican Land Grant — General Grant.

The validity of claims under the Sutter general title, affirmed in Hensley's Case, No. 33.

*1030[This was a petition by Nathaniel Bassett, claiming the Rancho Los Coluses, for a confirmation of his claim.]

Claim for four leagues of land in Butte county, confirmed by the board', and appealed by the United States.

S. W. Inge, U. S. Atty.

E. O. Crosby, for appellees.

2

 [Reversed in 21 How. (G2 U. S.) 412.]

HOFFMAN, District Judge.

The original grantee in this case was one of those who petitioned Governor Micheltorena in 1844, and whose lands were granted in the general grant dated December 22d, 1844. The validity of this grant has been already passed upon by this court in the case of U. S. v. Hensley [1 Black, 35]. and as the grantee in this case is proved to have been one of those whose petition was favorably reported on by General Sutter, and to whom the latter caused to be delivered a copy of the general grant, the claim clearly falls within the principles decided in that case. The grantee is also shown to have occupied and cultivated his land in 1844 under the provisional order or permission granted by the governor. No objection is made to the confirmation of this claim on the part of the United States. It was unanimously confirmed by the board, and we see no reason for reversing their decision. A decree of confirmation must therefore be entered.

[Upon an appeal to the supreme court, the above decree tras reversed, and the cause was remanded to this court, with directions to dismiss the petition. 21 How. (62 U. S.) 412.]
H. R. 8841 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 114 Center 

Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. FLOYD B. OLSON POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 114 Center Street East in Roseau, Minnesota, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Floyd B. Olson Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
(Reap. Dec. 10509)

#### The Akron *v.*United States

Entry No. 26130.

(Decided April 14, 1963)

*Stem & ShostaJe*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, consists of mirrors exported from Japan; and that, at the time of exportation thereof to the United States, the market value or the price 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 quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and covering 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, were the invoice unit values plus f.o.b. charges set out on the invoices, but not including the buying commission as stated on the invoices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the merchandise the subject of this stipulation is not included in the list of articles designated by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, as provided for in Sec. 6(a) of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, Public Law 927, 84th Congress, and that said merchandise is subject to appraisement under See. 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for re-appraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for a decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here in question and that such value is the invoice unit value, plus *469f.o.b. charges set out on the invoice, but not including the buying commission, as stated on said invoice.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### Golding Bros. Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7336.

Invoice dated Vichte, Belgium, January 20, 1939.

Certified January 23, 1939.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 4, 1939.

Entry No. 795185.

*218(Decided July 15, 1947)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson (Samuel T. Siegel*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kinci-ieloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, as follows:

> (1) That the merchandise in question consists of cotton mattress ticking exported from Belgium on or about January 20th, 1939.

> (2) That as to the quality numbers noted in schedule A, hereto annexed and made a part hereof, the price at which such or similar imported merchandise is freely offered for sale, packed ready for delivery, in the principal market of the United States to all purchasers, at the time of exportation of the imported merchandise, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, with allowance made for duty, cost of transportation and insurance, and other necessary expenses from the place of shipment to the place of delivery, a commission not exceeding 6 per centum, if any has been paid or contracted to be paid on goods secured otherwise than by purchase, or profits not to exceed 8 per centum and a reasonable allowance for general expenses, not to exceed 8 per centum on purchased goods, are the values as expressed in schedule A, hereto attached, and that there exists no foreign or export values therefore.

> (3) That the reappraisement case above noted is hereby submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the United States value, as that value is defined in section 402 (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are as listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.

> SCHEDULE A

> *Quality Width Value*

> Newfoundland #978_ 56"_ $0.2792 per yard, net packed.

> Newfoundland #978_ 41"_ $0.2681 per yard, net packed.

> Clairmont #933_ 64"_ $0.1873 per yard, net packed.

> Ostend #894_ 56"_ $0.2358 per yard, net packed.
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of The WashtenawGroup, Inc., does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of TheWashtenaw Group, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005(the “Report’) that

 

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

 

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

 

 
| Date: May 13,  2005 | /s/ Charles C.  Huffman                     |   |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                | Charles  C. Huffman                         |
|                | President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                |                                        |
|                |                                        |
| Date: May 13,  2005 | /s/ Howard M.  Nathan                       |   |
|                | Howard  M. Nathan                           |
|                | Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                     |                                             |        |  |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6002]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-393-004; RP06-298-004, RP94-367-013, and RP95-31-021]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 22, 2007, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National Fuel) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in 
Appendix A to its filing. The tariff sheets have a proposed effective 
date of April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#793f3c2b3a36171510171c2a0c0909160b0d391f1c0b1a571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7b1b2a5b4b8999b9e9992a4828787988583b791928594d9909881">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6002 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# opT-Zoo3-o010 P. 1 

# ,~a7IaI W~~ o noooTj a~
P .O. Box 331, Millwood, VA 22646 -~(540) 837-1602 c__ ~__J 

# June 7, 2010
BY HAND 

# Document Control Office Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Room6428 U .S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N .W . Washington, DC 20460



# Re: Testing Consent Order for Ethylene Dichloride; InterimReport (Docket No. OPPT-2003-0010) Dear Sirs: \ ~ J y



# Enclosed in sextuplicate is the six-month interimreport required under the Enforceable Consent Agreement for Ethylene Dichloride, 68 Fed. Reg. 33125 (June 3, 2003) (the "ECA"), describing the status of testing conducted or to be conducted under the ECA . Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is any question about this status report . Sincerely, 

# pt

# ~~' VV ~4 (WCA~4WCA) Peter E. Voytek, ~h.D. Manager 

# 4 .,

Enclosures cc: John E. Schaeffer W . Caffey Norman, Esq. 

# CON','Art.'3 N, ., f,r 5099829

# 0 k rQ r.~ m

3 

## m m

m O n 7 c x D 

### `° < m o Co' ,n m o _c ~ 3 `° a m 0 m ~7 n~ -o --IF m m
, 0 -0 to a r. ~ p o N x ~ ~ .< ci co o ~c ~ ~ ~ o ~ D D o ~t s QO C ~ O OT n p N f < 7 a ^n' ~ p f~9 ~ C1 O < ~ N
- (D ~ Z 0 N ~ ~ j fD

m m rn m C 

### N 7 m m m m° N ~n 3 x ~ D m 47 O D C~1 O y O

C1 m ~ y 'CD X 01 N p1 ~ m m 7 i Ol ~ (~p m'

_ 0 ~j Gl 7 0 n 0 (D y co 7 f (O ~ F !D C F f~ p ,~ CO Q- 'a



### m U m a a' O' y ~ 'n m -_i m

a n lG a N ~ ~Q %CD d O ~ ~o O m * ~ . o O O

c 7 2 N ~ (p c . Q ~ Z O ~? nmo ~c

b :3 c m

o m 2

c~ m aC)n~ mo D o ~'o. =~~D

jm~3v o m yro Q~ m m ° a m y =r o m m m a ;c c > > (D 9~ a 9' CD 

### 3 N O O 0 0 ~ o m y c m N O C