alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Alvin RELIFORD, Appellant.

No. 58677.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1977.

Truly W. McDaniel, Shreveport, for appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John A. Richardson, Dist. Atty., Charles R. Lindsay, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, La.R.S. 40:966, and sentenced to life imprisonment. We find no merit to the four assignments of error presented by his appeal:

(1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to require the state to furnish the evidentiary detail requested by the defendant’s bill of particulars. *State v. Thomas,*290 So.2d 317 (La.1974).

(2) We have previously rejected contentions similar to those now advanced of the unconstitutionality of provisions of the statute upon which the defendant was pros*1377ecuted and convicted. *State*v. *Stetson,*317 So.2d 172 (La.1975); *State*v. *Sliger,*261 La. 999, 261 So.2d 643 (1972).

(3) We find no error in the trial court’s overruling of objection to the testimony as to the customary manner in which an addict uses heroin, when elicited from a witness previously qualified as an expert in narcotics practice. Under similar circumstances, we have previously held that testimony similar to that here elicited was relevant to the issue of intent. *State v. Marks,*337 So.2d 1177 (La.1976) (syllabus 17). The defendant relies upon *State v. Sibley,*310 So.2d 100 (La.1975), but that decision is inapposite to the present issue; it concerned an inadmissible surmise by a non-expert as to the unidentified contents of a cellophane bag.

(4) The trial court was not required to give the special charge requested by the defendant. To be wholly correct, it required qualification, limitation, or explanation. The court therefore did not err in refusing to give the charge. See La.C.Cr.P. art. 807.

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated September 16, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements, schedule, and internalcontrol over financial reporting in the Annual Report of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended July 3, 2010 (53-week period). We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of Nobel Learning Communities, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-148294, effective January 8, 2008) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-140507, effective February 7, 2007; File No. 333-124247, effective April 22,2005; File No. 333-61372, effective May 22, 2001; File No. 333-61374, effective May 22, 2001; File No. 033-64701, effective December 1, 1995). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 

September 16, 2010
UNITED
      STATES


SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington,
      D.C. 20549








**FORM
      8-K**





**CURRENT
      REPORT**


Pursuant
      to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934











Date
      of
      Report:  October 30, 2007








MIDDLESEX
      WATER COMPANY


(Exact
      name of registrant as specified in its charter)








NEW
                JERSEY
            0-422
            22-1114430(State
                or other jurisdiction of
            (Commission
            (I.R.S.
                Employerincorporation
                or organization)
            File
                Number)
            Identification
                No.)








1500
      RONSON ROAD, P.O. BOX 1500, ISELIN, NEW JERSEY 08830


(Address
      of principal executive offices, including zip code)








(732)-634-1500


(Registrant’s
      telephone number, including area code)











Check
      the
      appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously
      satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following
      provisions:





o  Written
      communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR
      230.425)





o  Soliciting
      material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14a-12)





o  Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.14d-2(b))





o  Pre-commencement
      communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
      240.13e-4(c))

















**Item.
      8.01.  Other Events**





Announcement
      that effective October 26, 2007, Middlesex Water Company has received approval
      from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities for a 9.1%, or $5.0 million
      increase in its base rates on an interim basis subject to refund, as set forth
      in the attached press release.





Section
      9
– Financial Statements and Exhibits





**Item
      9.01 – (d) Exhibits**





Press
      release dated October 30, 2007 announcing that effective October 26, 2007,
      Middlesex Water Company has received approval from the New Jersey Board of
      Public Utilities for a 9.1%, or $5.0 million increase in its base rates on
      an
      interim basis subject to refund.














SIGNATURE








Pursuant
      to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
      has
      duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf of the undersigned hereunto
      duly authorized.











MIDDLESEX
                WATER COMPANY(Registrant)s/Kenneth
                J. QuinnKenneth
                J. QuinnVice
                President, General Counsel,Secretary
                and Treasurer








Dated:    October
      30, 2007





2
Before the First Division,

January 31, 1939

No. 40560.

#### Protest 975186-G of Levin Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of trick daggers composed entirely of metal similar to those the subject of Abstract 37637. The claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         585,857
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,000
<INVENTORY>                                    729,183
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,439,632
<PP&E>                                          77,492
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,256,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,697
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,358
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,245,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,256,092
<SALES>                                        121,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,212
<CGS>                                           43,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               918,490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                44,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (871,680)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (871,680)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (119,594)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (991,274)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
#### L.H. and D.H., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee.

No. 99-1456.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 17, 1999.

Metcalfe & Metcalfe and George L. Met-calfe, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Robin H. Greene, Miami, for appellee.

Before JORGENSON, COPE, and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *M.F.G. v. Department of Children & Families,*723 So.2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(holding that where Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that child was subject to prospective risk of harm, finding of dependency was proper).
CAPRIUS, INC.
                                One Parker Plaza
                               Fort Lee, NJ 07024

                                January 14, 2000
Jack Nelson
281 East Linden Avenue
Englewood, NJ 07631

Dear Jack:

         This letter sets forth the agreement between you and Caprius, Inc. (the
"Company") regarding the conversion of the $258,500 severance amount due to you
under Section 7 of the termination and severance agreement, dated as of June 28,
1999, between you and the Company (the "Termination Agreement") to a Note and a
Security Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A and B,
respectively. Except for the change in the timing of the severance payment, the
Termination Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         In consideration of this Agreement, except as may be required by
subpoena or by applicable law or government (including self-regulatory
organization) regulations, you acknowledge that the Company's business
reputation is essential to it and therefore you agree not to make any
disparaging or negative statements or remarks about the Company or any of its
officers, directors, employees or other personnel. Similarly, except as may be
required by subpoena or by applicable law or government (including
self-regulatory organization) regulations, the Company will not authorize any of
its officers, directors or employees to make any disparaging or negative
statements or remarks regarding your tenure with the Company and your
termination as an executive officer of the Company.

         This letter sets forth the entire agreement between the parties hereto
as to the matters herein, superseding all prior agreements (written or oral),
and cannot be amended, modified or terminated except by an agreement executed by
the parties hereto.

         If the foregoing terms meet your approval, please acknowledge your
agreement by executing and returning a duplicate original of this letter.

                                              CAPRIUS, INC.



                                              By: /s/ George Aaron
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 George Aaron, President


AGREED:   /s/ Jack Nelson
         -------------------
              Jack Nelson
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 232 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 232

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the manufacturer 
limitation on the number of new qualified plug-in electric drive motor 
                     vehicles eligible for credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 31, 2011

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the manufacturer 
limitation on the number of new qualified plug-in electric drive motor 
                     vehicles eligible for credit.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MANUFACTURER LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF 
              QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES ELIGIBLE 
              FOR CREDIT.

    Paragraph (2) of section 30D(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``200,000'' and inserting ``500,000''.
                                 <all>
```
News Release

Release Date:     Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Release Time:     Immediate

Contact:          Eric E. Stickels, Executive Vice President and
                  Chief Financial Officer

Phone:            (315) 366-3702

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

Oneida Financial Corp. Board Authorizes Stock Repurchase Program

         Oneida, NY, February 13, 2008 - Oneida Financial Corp. (NASDAQ:ONFC),
announced today that it will be commencing a stock repurchase program to acquire
up to 250,000 shares of the Company's common stock, which represents
approximately 3.2% of the common stock outstanding.

         Michael R. Kallet, President and Chief Executive Officer of Oneida
Financial Corp. stated, "The Board of Directors considers the Company's common
stock to be an attractive investment, particularly in view of the current price
at which the common stock is trading relative to the Company's earnings per
share and book value per share." The repurchase program is expected to be
completed over the next twelve months. Mr. Kallet further stated, "We view the
repurchase of our stock as an excellent opportunity to deliver long-term value
to our shareholders."

         Oneida Financial Corp. reported total assets at September 30, 2007 of
$513.6 million and shareholders' equity of $58.6 million. The Company's wholly
owned subsidiaries include; The Oneida Savings Bank, a New York State chartered
FDIC insured stock savings bank, State Bank of Chittenango, a state chartered
limited-purpose commercial bank, Bailey, Haskell & LaLonde Agency, an insurance
and financial services company and Benefit Consulting Group, an employee
benefits consulting and retirement plan administration firm. Oneida Savings Bank
was established in 1866 and with the April 2007 acquisition of The National Bank
of Vernon, Oneida Savings Bank operates twelve full-service banking offices in
Madison, Oneida and Onondaga counties.
EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                         <C>                <C>                                 <C>
NAME OF                   PERCENT         NAMES UNDER WHICH                     STATE OF
SUBSIDIARY                OWNERSHIP       SUBSIDIARIES DO BUSINESS              INCORPORATION
----------                ---------       ------------------------              -------------

Investors Title             100%          Investors Title Insurance             North Carolina
Insurance Company                         Company

Northeast Investors         100%          Northeast Investors Title             South Carolina
Title Insurance                           Insurance Company
Company

Investors Title             100%          Investors Title Exchange              North Carolina
Exchange Corporation                      Corporation

South Carolina              100%          South Carolina Document               South Carolina
Document Preparation                      Preparation Company
Company

Investors Title             100%          Investors Title Management            North Carolina
Management                                Services, Inc.
Services, Inc.
</TABLE>

                                       27
# C_2014261EN.01002002.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 14 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Annegret Weitkämper-Krug v NRW Bank — Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

(Case C-571/13) (1)

1

2014/C 261/37

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.

1

---
No. 99-7859.

#### Nix *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
EPA Analysis of Veolia's June 7, 2012 Historical Data Submission

Analysis by Jennifer Williams & David Ogulei 

All years combined (12-hr rolling average, lb/hr)

7/1/04-5/31/09 Hg Minimum Median Average Maximum N

Unit 2 0 6.547E-06 0.000275 0.006361638 2586240Unit 3 0 6.474E-06 0.000253 0.005917775 2586240Unit 4 0 0.0033917 0.008659 0.059851552 2586240

1/2/05-12/31/08 LVM Minimum Median Average Maximum N

Unit 2 0 0.1162806 0.858779 68.4687214 2102400Unit 3 0 0.1396305 0.99291 77.81694287 2102400Unit 4 0 1.6565573 2.789275 77.28803855 2102400

1/2/05-12/31/08 SVM Minimum Median Average Maximum N

Unit 2 0 0.0781746 0.83193 90.98247959 2102400Unit 3 0 0.0582251 0.829436 81.59469867 2102400Unit 4 0 1.1326414 2.626729 98.12811703 2102400

Unit # Metal Date Range Number of Datapoints Minimum Median Average Maximum

OPLs proposed by Veolia

% 

h

Hg 7/1/04-5/31/09 2586240 0 0.0000065 0.00027 0.00636 0.0057 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.1163 0.8587792 68.4687 140 SVM 1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.0782 0.83192985 90.9825 189 Hg 7/1/04-5/31/09 2586240 0 0.0000065 0.00025276 0.00592 0.0057 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.1396 0.99290954 77.8169 143 SVM 1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 0.0582 0.82943622 81.5947 193 Hg 7/1/04-5/31/09 2586240 0 0.0034 0.00865863 0.05985 0.078 LVM 1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 1.6566 2.7892751 77.288 151 SVM 1/2/05-12/31/08 2102400 0 1.1326 2.62672949 98.1281 191 

234
#### FOX v. EALER.

December 18, 1837.

*Rule to show cause why the submission should not be made a ride of court.*

If parties in a cause pending, submit all matters in variance between them to arbitrators, without agreeing that the submission shall be made a rule of court, the court will not grant an application to make the same a rule of court.

*170THIS was a suit brought to June term, 1835, No. 441. While the cause was pending, to wit on January 27th, 1837, the parties entered into a bond, and submission to arbitrators, of “ all matters in variance between them.” The submission was not entitled in the cause pending, nor did it contain any reference to it. The arbitrators awarded in favour of the plaintiff 555 dollars *2*cents.

The plaintiff then obtained a rule to show cause why the submission should not be made a rule of court.

*II. Hubbell,*for plaintiff.

*Goodman,*for defendant.

Authorities cited: *Watson on Jlrb.*31, 140; Act of 18th June, 1836, relating to reference, &c., *(Stroud’s Pur A. lit.*Arbitration); 3 *Watts*320, 329; 2 *Watts*471; 4 *Wash. C. C. R.*325; 1 *Dali*364.

Per Curiam.—

This rule must be discharged. The first, second, and third sections of the act of 10th June, 1838, contemplate that the parties shall *agree*that the submission shall be made a rule of court. Here there is no such agreement. Our act is evidently framed on the basis of the provisions of the statute of the 9th and 10th William III. cap. 15, which have been repeatedly construed to require an agreement that the submission shall be made a rule of court, before it will be made so. *Wats, on Jlrb.*25.

Rule discharged.
Carl Daly 

COLORADO 

Department of Public 

Health & Environment 

Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 

Air Program Director 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

17 February 2016 

Dear Mr. Daly, 

Per a letter to you dated 31 March 2015, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 

Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), acknowledged that 40 CFR Part 58.1 O(a)(5)(iv) required a "second 

near-road N02 monitor in any CBSA with a population of 2,500,000 or more persons, or a second 

monitor in any CBSA with a population of 500,000 or more persons that has one or more roadway 

segments with 250,000 or greater AADT counts" by January 1, 2015. This second site was addressed in 

Colorado's 2014 Annual Network Plan submitted to EPA on 1 July 2014, as required by CFR, and was 

approved by EPA on 13 March 2015. 

In the letter, the APCD committed to having this second near-road site in Denver, located at 1-25 and 

49th Avenue, to be operational by 31 December 2015. This letter is to provide confirmation that the 

site officially became operational on 1 October 2015. The APCD is happy that this issue has been 

resolved ahead of the commitment date and can be removed from any pending items lists. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (303) 692-3114 or at william.allison@state.co.us 

z:ly, Willialf¥ 

Director, Air Pollution Control Division 

cc. Abby Fulton, EPA (email) 

Monica Morales, EPA (email) 

Richard Payton, EPA (email) 

Chris Colclasure, APCD (email) 

Gordon Pierce, APCD (email) 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive S. , Denver, CO 80246-1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe 

John W. Hickenlooper, Governor I Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Office1·
No. 39268.

#### Protests 65512-G, etc., of A. Beller & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230 were held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 31 as claimed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 0**  **9 -**  **24 10** 

I n R e: HENRY EARL MILLER , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 6:04

- cr - 00022

- HFF ; 6:06

- cv - 00548

- HFF )

Submitted : March 16, 2010 Decided : March 17, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Henry Earl Miller , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Henry Earl Miller petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his “motion to amend the unwarned recharacterized 3

- page unlabeled l etter.” He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of t he district court docket sheet s reveals that the district court denied the motions in text orders on December 29, 2009 **.** Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Miller ’s motions , we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave t o proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.2




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 Annual Report of China Recycling Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David Chong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




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




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





Date: April 1, 2011
/s/ David ChongDavid ChongChief Financial Officer and Secretary