alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Virginia Countryman, et al. *v.*State.

In Banc.

Oct. 11, 1948.

(37 So. (2d) 21)

*118Dyer *&*Campbell, for appellants.

*120R, O. Arrington, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

*121Montgomery, J.

Appellants were convicted in the court below on a charge of grand larceny and were sentenced to serve a term of five years in the State Penitentiary. Prom this they appeal to this Court.

 Amongst the errors complained of is the giving of the only instruction to the jury, which was given at the instance of the State and is in the following form: “The court instructs the jury for the State that if you believe from the evidence beyond every reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty as charged in the indictment, you should so find by your verdict, and in that event the form of your verdict should be: ‘We the jury find the defendants guilty as charged in the indictment.’ ” The defendants requested no instruction. It is argued that the instruction is erroneous, because (1) it did not define within itself the elements and mature of the crime charged but only referred the jury to the indictment; and (2) the jury might understand from the instruction that they could not convict one defendant without convicting the other.

Our attention has been called to Ellis v. State, Miss., 33 So. (2d) 838, 839; Upton v. State, 143 Miss. 1, 108 So. 287; Thompson v. State, 158 Miss. 121, 130 So. 112, but after a careful examination of the evidence, we are so overwhelmingly convinced of the guilt of the defendants that we are of the opinion that from this whole record the guilt of each of the defendants affirmatively appears and that the judgment of the court below was not a miscarriage of justice.

*122As to all of the errors complained of, we are convinced that, if errors they were, they were harmless in the face of the testimony in this record, and that this case must be affirmed under the provisions of Rule 11, of the rules of this Court: which reads as follows:

> “No judgment shall be reversed on the ground of misdirection to the jury, or the improper admission or exclusion of evidence, or for error as to the matter of pleading or procedure, unless it shall affirmatively appear, from the whole record, that such judgment has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

In Wilson v. State of Mississippi, Miss., 37 So. (2d) 19, an instruction similar to the one herein complained of is held to be reversible error under the indictment in that case, but in that case the judgment is being reversed also for errors other than the instruction, which errors may have a definite bearing on another conviction. Here those questions are not presented, and it is our judgment that no honest jury could do otherwise than return a verdict of guilty against each of these appellants upon the testimony in this record.

Affirmed.
January 27, 1943

No. 47983.

#### Protest 608963-G of Olivier Straw Goods Corp.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
----

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 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), theundersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the "Company") does herebycertify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2008 (the "Report") that: 

1. 

The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

2. 

The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. 

Date: November 14, 2008 

| /s/ John L. Key                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| John L. Key                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| Chief Executive      Officer and       Principal Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                    |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solelypursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as partof the Report or as a separate disclosure document. 

----
No. 38946.

#### Protests 775975-G, etc., of Ralph C. Allen (New York).

.Opinion -b.y

Dallingeb, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the calculating machines operated by hand, classified at 27)4 percent, were held Rutiable.-at only -25 percent under the provisions of paragraph 372 and T. D. 47785. The protests were -overruled as to the calculating machines assessed under paragraph 353.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

      ( print page 15697)    
This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the charter for the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health (ICSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through March 20, 2009. 

For further information, contact Dana Shelton, Executive Secretary, Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, NE., M/S K-50, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, telephone 770-488-5709 or fax 770-488-5767. 

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E7-6020 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
### The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Frederick R. Buckles, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. _____________ No. 95-2403

_____________ Roosevelt Holmes, * * Petitioner-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Eastern District of Missouri. * James A. Gammon, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent-Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: April 10, 1996 Filed: July 1, 1996

_____________ Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Roosevelt Holmes appeals from a final judgment of th e district court 1 dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition
. The magistrate judge to whom this case was refer red recommended dismissing the petition on the basis that Holmes' first ground for relief wa s successive, that the second and third grounds fo r relief were abusive, and that Holmes had failed to establish cause and prejudice or actual innocenc e to overcome these procedural deficiencies. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's opinion in its entirety and d ismissed Holmes' petition.

### -2- Although Holmes' court-appointed attorney filed an appellate brief, Holmes subsequently filed a motion to dismiss his counsel's brief an d submitted a pro se appellate brief. At oral argument, we permitted Holmes ' court-appointed couns el to argue the points outlined in the pro se brief. We deny Holmes' pro se motion to strike the brief filed by his counsel.
After car efully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Holmes' habeas corpus petition for the reasons se t for th in the magistrate judge's well-reasoned opinion as adopted by th e district court. As no error in fact or law appears, we accordingly, affir m the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 51104.

#### Protests 52217-K, etc., of B. Filippone & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) *2)4*percent for the cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269, and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. RICKY ALONZO JOHNSON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 590 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 17th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Verde Bio Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended April 30, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott Cox, Principal Executive Officer and Chief Executive 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, 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.
#### Francis H. Simons, *Respondent, v.*The New York Life Insurance Company, *Appellant.*

— Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs; leave to answer given. Opinion by Dykman, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting. .
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

John W. McQueen,

Petitioner

 v.

Deb Timmerman-Cooper. Warden,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-00955

Judge Smith

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on petitioner John W. Queen’s

February 1, 2012 request for stay of judgment pending disciplinary action. There is no

procedure allowing the Chief Judge to stay a pending case assigned to a district judge

because of disciplinary complaint has been filed. If petitioner desires to file a complaint

of judicial misconduct, he must complete the attached form and file it with Clerk of

Court for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Further information can be found at:

http://ca6pub1.circ6.dcn/internet/circuit_executive/judcomplaint.htm.

Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and

Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen (14) days

after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for

reconsideration by the District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the

Case: 2:10-cv-00955-GCS-MRA Doc #: 33 Filed: 02/02/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

Order, or part thereof, in question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District

Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to

be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

s/ Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:10-cv-00955-GCS-MRA Doc #: 33 Filed: 02/02/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
#### JOHN F. KARTH, PLAINTIFF, v. PORT READING RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Argued June 5, 1918

Decided November 11, 1918.

1. A charge that the plaintiff did not .assume the risk of the negligence of his fellow employes, while true as a general proposition, is subject to some qualification where the plaintiff knows that his fellow employes have been negligent, and goes on regardless of that fact.

2. On an issue involving the question of whether a railroad was negligent in the operation of its trains in its yard, evidence as to the practice of other railroads as to warning when trains w.ere drilling in a yard is admissible as showing the care that is ordinarily used by prudent men conversant with the matter in hand.

On defendant’s rule to show cause.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Swayze and Trenchard.

For the plaintiff, *Clarence Sackett*and *Sydney A. Syme*(of New York).

For the defendant, *John F. Reger*and *Frank S. Katzenbach, Jr.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

Karth was employed by the defendant company at Port Reading, and was shifting and drilling cars. *37His train was being operated on track 1 and track 6 of tlie south yard. He alighted and ran ahead for the purpose of turning switch No. 6 which was between track 1 and track *2.*After throwing the switch he started back between track 1 and track 2, to board his engine, which had continued to move. When about five feet from the switch he noticed a little heap of sand in the middle of track 1. He went over on track 2 and bent to pick up some of the sand, and was struck by an engine running on track 2. He saw the engine, but did not know it was moving.

We think there is no evidence to show that his dirty called him to he on track 2, and that as his train was drilling on track 1 and track 6 the men who were running the engine and train on track 2 could not anticipate that he would be on that track. They had a right to assume that he would work only where the line of his duty called him; and he does not seem to have been under any obligation to pick rip the sand, nor does it seem to have been necessary in so doing to go on track 2. We think, therefore, that there should have been a nonsuit.

The trial judge charged that the plaintiff did not assume the risk of the negligence of his fellow employes. This is true as a general proposition, bul it is subject to some qualification where the plaintiff knows that his fellow employes have been negligent, and goes on regardless of that fact. We think there was evidence requiring this phase of the case to be put to the jury.

The trial judge refused to admit evidence as to the practice of other railroads as to warning when trains were drilling in a yard. We think this evidence was admissible. The obligation is to use the care that is ordinarily used by prudent men conversant with the matter in hand, and surely no evidence could he better than the evidence of men who could testify to the practice of other railroads.

For these reasons we think the rule must be made absolute.
|                                          |
|------------------------------------------|
|                                          |  |  |
| Wells Fargo Bank, National Association   | HSBC Bank USA, National Association |
| As Indenture Trustee                     | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Marianna C. Stershic    | Attn:  Nina Nassar |
| Sixth Street and Marquette Avenue        | 10 East 40 th Street, 14 th Floor |
| MAC N9311-161                            | New York, New York 10016 |
| Minneapolis, MN  55479         |   |
|                                     |   |
| Copy To:                                 |   |
| Ally Wholesale Enterprises LLC           | Ally Financial Inc. |
| Attn:  Vice President          | As Administrator |
| 200 Renaissance Center, 12 th Floor | Attn:  Vice President |
| Detroit, Michigan  48265       | 200 Renaissance Center, 12 th Floor |
|                                     | Detroit, Michigan 48265 |
|                                     |   |
| Re:                                      | Ally Master Owner Trust |
|                                     | Annual Statement as to Compliance |   |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011, and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing and Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing and the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |   |
|   |   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |   |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |   |

----

|                                    |
|------------------------------------|
|                                    |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2010-1     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2010-VFN-1 |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2010-2     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2010-3     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2010-4     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2010-5     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2011-1     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2011-2     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2011-3     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2011-4     |
| Ally Master Owner Trust 2011-5     |
Organization Person Contacted D

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 12/1

Regional Airline Association 12/

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 12/1

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 12/ 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. ET. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Inez E. De Jesus at 1-888-912-1227, or 954-423-7977. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 2 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. ET via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or write Inez E. De Jesus, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Inez E. De Jesus. Ms. De Jesus can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                 

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: March 29, 2007. 

John Fay, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E7-6285 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
(Reap. Dec. 8499)

#### Weiss & Biheller Mdse. Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 750547-1, etc.

(Decided December 2, 1955)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Appeals to Reappraisement, listed in the Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, 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, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) 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 were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.