alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GEORGE STANAWAY, Teleman Radioman Third Class, U. S. Navy, Appellant

12 USCMA 552, 31 CMR 138

*553No. 15,427

November 24, 1961

*Captain John P. Gibbons,*USN, was on the brief for Appellant, Accused. *Major Elvin B. Coon, Jr.,*USMC, was on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

Before a special court-martial, the accused pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, a number of violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He was sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, partial forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for four months. On review before the board of review, it was contended that the plea of guilty to one of the offenses was improvident because the facts disclosed in defense counsel’s statement in mitigation showed that when the accused cashed a check which did not belong to him he did not intend to deprive the payee permanently of the proceeds. With Member W. S. Tyson dissenting, the board of review rejected the claim of error. In our opinion, the statement in mitigation is ineonsist-ent with the plea in that it shows, as Member Tyson pointed out in his dissenting opinion, that the accused intended to deprive the owner only temporarily of the proceeds of the check. United States v Epperson, 10 USCMA 582, 28 CMR 148. Accordingly, we affirm only so much of the findings of guilty of specification 1, Charge I, as finds the accused guilty of wrongful appropriation, in violation of Article 121 of the Uniform Code, 10 USC § 921. United States v Epperson, supra; United States v Dosal-Maldonado, 12 USCMA 442, 31 CMR 28.

Error also appears in the admission of evidence of a purported previous conviction. Although all the offenses found were committed in December 1960, the prosecution introduced evidence of a conviction by special court-martial for offenses committed in January and February 1961. Manifestly, the later conviction was not a previous conviction and should not have been admitted in evidence. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951, paragraph 756 (2); United States v Crusoe, 3 USCMA 793, 14 CMR 211.

The decision of the board of review as to the findings is modified as indicated above. The sentence is set aside, and the record of trial is returned to the board of review for reconsideration of the sentence in the light of this opinion.
Exhibit 31.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, John M. Presley, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Commerce Financial
Corporation;



(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does 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;



(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



(4) The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in the report any change in the registrants internal
controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



(6) The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 10, 2004 |  | /s/ JOHN M. PRESLEY    
|                   |  | John M. Presley        
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6257.

Entry No. 750371, etc.

Invoices dated Campanis, Brazil, April 10, 1942, etc.

Certified April 10, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 9, 1942, etc.

(Decided February 14, 1946)

No appearance by the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

When these appeals for reappraisement were called on the calendar, no appearance was made on behalf of the plaintiff, although duly notified of the time and place thereof.

' As this record contains no evidence to warrant a disturbance of the values reported by the appraiser, I find the proper values to be the appraised values.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS N O . A P - 75, 981
EX PA R TE W I LE Y BU R LE SO N , JR. , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. CR9 5 - 1 0 5 I N T HE 2 2 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT ND FROM CO M AL CO UNTY
P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant plea ded guilty to forg ery , and wa s sentenc ed to six ty

y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction. Ap pli c ant c on te nd s th a t his se nte nc e is i lle g a l, a nd his c ouns e l in e ff

e c tiv e fo r a llo wi nghim to plead guilty

in exchang e for

an unauthor ized sentence . Be cause Applicant plea ded guilty to a third deg ree felony , enhanc ed by one prior felony conviction to se cond deg ree punishment rang e, he sh ou ld h ave be e n s ub

je c t to a ma ximumse nte nc e of

tw e nty y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt.The trial c ourt deter mined that Applicant’s six ty -y ear sentenc e is unauthorized . Applicant i s en t i t l ed to relief. Ex

pa rteHu e rta , 6 9 2 S. W. 2 d 6 8 1 ( T e x. Cr im
. Ap p . 1 9 8 5 )
. T h e tr ia l c ourt
re c omm e nd s th a t App lic ant’ s se nte nc e be re fo rm e d. Ho we ve r, be c a us e Ap pli c ant p le a de d guil ty pursuant to a plea

ag ree ment, his judgment a nd sentenc e must be set aside
. Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. CR95-105 in the 22nd J udicial District Court
o f C o m al C o un ty

i s s etas i d e, an d

Ap p l i ca n ti s r e m a n d e d t o t h e t ri al co urt t o an s we r t h e c h ar ge
a g a ins t him
. Copies of this opinion s hall be sent to the Te x as De partment of C r im in a l Ju s ti c e
– Co r r e c tional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: September

10, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3087-3088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-860]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-125632-06]
RIN 1545-BF83


Corporate Reorganizations; Distributions Under Sections 
368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B); Correction Notice

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary 
regulations; correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to notice of proposed 
rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations that was 
published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 (71 FR 
75898) providing guidance regarding the qualification of certain 
transactions as reorganizations described in section 368(a)(1)(D) where 
no stock and/or securities of the acquiring corporation are issued and 
distributed in the transaction.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce A. Decker at (202) 622-7550 (not 
a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary 
regulations (REG-125632-06) that is the subject of these corrections 
are under sections 368 and 354 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to 
temporary regulations (REG-125632-06) contains errors that may prove to 
be misleading and are in need of clarification.

Correction of Publication

    Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference 
to

[[Page 3088]]

temporary regulations (REG-125632-06) that was the subject of FR Doc. 
E6-21572, is corrected as follows:
    On page 75898, column 3, in the preamble, under the caption, line 
9, the language ``acquiring corporation is issued and'' is corrected to 
read ``acquiring corporation are issued and.''

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
[FR Doc. E7-860 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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 State

          - [Public Notice 5778] 

# AGENCY:

State Department. 

# ACTION: 

Notice. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ron Acker, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520-0106, (202) 663-1205 or e-mail                         *ackerrl@state.gov*.                     

# SUMMARY:

This public notice announces the change in the standard for fingerscans of the Biometric Visa Program from two fingerscans to ten fingerscans. The establishment of the Biometric Visa Program was announced to the public in December 2004 as a response to the requirements established by the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. When the program began, available technology only allowed for efficient capture and comparisons of two fingerscans. Now, improvements in technology allow the Program to incorporate a ten fingerscan standard. 

## Why is the Department planning to take ten fingerscans from visa applicants? 

The Biometric Visa Program works closely with the US-VISIT Program of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Both programs currently require aliens to submit two fingerscans as part of their respective application procedures. In consultation with DHS and the Department of Justice, the Department is instituting the ten fingerscan standard to improve our ability to detect and thwart persons ineligible for visas by raising the accuracy rate in matching fingerscans. 

## Will this change affect all visa applicants? 

Visa applicants subject to the Biometric Visa Program will be required to provide ten fingerscans with their first visa application following the transition. 

## When will this change take place? 

The Department plans to begin deployment of the ten fingerscan system to all visa issuing consular posts abroad beginning in April 2007, with completion scheduled for the end of 2007. 

Dated: April 2, 2007. 

Maura Harty, 

Assistant Secretary, Consular Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E7-8604 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
EXHIBIT 99.2

             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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Annual Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Christine R. Larson, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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 20, 2003                 /s/ CHRISTINE R. LARSON
                                   ---------------------------------
                                   Christine R. Larson
                                   Chief Financial Officer
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 319TH DISTRICT COURT OF NUECES COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 17th day of

March, 2016, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Roel Garcia, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-16-00070-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 14-CR-0630-G)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in

accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 12th day of May, 2016.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
#### Rohner, Gehrig & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7446.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, October 1942, etc.

Certified October 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., January 11, 1943, etc.

Entry Nos. 716625; 718644.

(Decided November 20, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016211EN.01004902.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v EUIPO (Liiga)

(Case T-54/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Liiga - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 211/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Schifko and E. Śliwińska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2014 (Case R 576/2014-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Liiga as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

---
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 295 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas more than 2,000,000 Americans are demonstrating 

their devotion to the United States and freedom by serving in the United States Armed Forces; 

Whereas there are a multitude of family members, including 

mothers, fathers, siblings, spouses, and children, supporting each member of the Armed Forces; 
2 

•HCON 295 EH 

Whereas, even in peacetime, the family of a member of the 

Armed Forces makes concessions given the inherent dangers of military service and the frequent relocations resulting in disruption of everyday routine; 

Whereas, during wartime, family members endure increased 

sacrifices, forgo time with their loved one, and face increased worry and uncertainty when their loved one 

serves extended tours overseas or engages in enhanced 

training activities; 

Whereas an increasing number of family members have taken 

on volunteer responsibilities in organizations associated 

with the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the family of a member of the Armed Forces wounded in action willingly accepts the additional role of caregiver, even when it requires postponement of personal 

goals; 

Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces serve 

as a pillar of strength and encouragement for those serving the interests of the United States at home and 

abroad; and 

Whereas the families of members of the Armed Forces play 

a critical role in providing emotional support and readjustment assistance as members transition from military 

life to civilian life: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress expresses its deepest apprecia3 tion to the families, both immediate and extended, of 

4 members of the United States Armed Forces for the un5 wavering support, both physical and emotional, that family 
3 

•HCON 295 EH 

1 members give their loved ones while they answer the call 

2 to serve their country and keep the United States safe. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 295 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the deepest appreciation of Congress to 

Armed Forces. the families of members of the United States
# P as s

# ama q 

# u o d 

# d y Trr ii 

## b e 

# P ll 

## e 

## a s 

## a n tt 

# P o ii 

# n tt Trr ii 

# ba ll 

# L a 

# n d s 0 0.5 1 2 3 4Miles



### Map Created by Christina Stringer February

## 18 2013 Data Source Base 

### Map Bing Maps
Trust Boundaries 

## US 2010 Census Fee Boundaries Passamaquoddy Tribe 

### Fee Land

Trust Land
#### Wanda J. STRICKLAND, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.

No. 04-3155.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 5, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 9, 2005.

David P. Rawls, The Brad Hendricks Law Firm, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.

Stacey E. McCord, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Wanda Strickland, who alleged she had been disabled since March 1999 from asthma, emphysema, and back pain related to her lungs, appeals the district court’s1 or*727der upholding the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. For reversal, Strickland argues the administrative law judge (ALJ) did not properly consider the effect of her obesity on her residual functional capacity (RFC). For the reasons that follow, we *affirm.*

Following a December 2002 hearing, the ALJ found that Strickland, who was born in January 1965, suffered from chronic obstructive asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, morbid obesity, allergic rhinitis, situational depression, and obstructive sleep apnea, but her impairments alone or combined were not of listing-level severity; that it was reasonable to assume Strickland’s obesity caused some limitation of motion in bending, stooping, and lifting; that these limitations would be considered in evaluating her RFC; that she failed to follow her doctors’ repeated admonitions to quit smoking; that her subjective allegations were not entirely credible; and that her RFC did not prevent her from performing either her past relevant work as a cashier, or a wide range of light jobs, as confirmed by the vocational expert’s testimony.

We conclude the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. *See Lewis v. Barnhart,*353 F.3d 642, 644-45 (8th Cir.2003) (standard of review). In particular, when Strickland applied for benefits and when she testified at the hearing, she focused on her asthma, emphysema, and continuous coughing as the conditions that prevented her from working. Nevertheless, she continued to smoke a pack or two of cigarettes daily, despite being advised by her doctors to quit, and the ALJ properly considered this in discounting her subjective allegations. *See Wheeler v. Apfel,*224 F.3d 891, 895 (8th Cir.2000); *Kisling v. Chater,*105 F.3d 1255, 1257 (8th Cir.1997). In addition, none of Strickland’s physicians imposed any work-related limitations related to her obesity. *See Forte v. Barnhart,*377 F.3d 892, 896 (8th Cir.2004); *Stormo v. Barnhart,*377 F.3d 801, 807 (8th Cir.2004) (in determining RFC, ALJ must consider medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s description of her limitations). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).