alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James HUX v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45800.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 6, 1970.

Jones & Patterson, Brookhaven, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Timmie Hancock, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice.

James Hux was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County of setting fire to the field and woods of one McNulty in violation of Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated, Section 2157 (1956).

The principal issue presented by the appeal concerns whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the conviction of Hux. Except for a threat by Hux to one of the state’s witnesses, the evidence is as follows: Homer Clark and his wife were returning from Brookhaven when they turned onto a blacktop road running adjacent to land owned by McNulty. An automobile was stopped in the road and Hux, the owner, was sitting in the driver’s seat next to a female companion. Two beer cans were seen by the Clarks on the front fenders of the car. Two other young men were in the field setting out fire with broom sage. Upon driving to the side of the parked automobile, Clark said: “You boys put out that fire.” Hux said, “He meant that.” One of the boys in the field said, “Hell, man, let’s go,” whereupon they returned to the parked car, gathered the cans of beer and entered the parked vehicle. Hux then drove off slowly, making no effort to run away. Hux never got *51out of the car and the only words spoken by him were, “He meant that,” when Clark told the young men to put out the fire. This was the version related by Mr. and Mrs. Clark.

Defendant had been with the other two young men and the girl for some time prior to driving the car to the place where the two young men were seen by Mr. and Mrs. Clark. Other than as stated there is no evidence that defendant participated in the crime. He was tried as a principal on the theory that he was an accessory before the fact as provided by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated, Section 1995 (1956).

In our opinion, the state’s case was sufficient to survive defendant’s request for a peremptory instruction, but, as stated in Quarles v. State, Miss., 199 So.2d 58 (1967) and Mister v. State, Miss., 190 So.2d 869 (1966), the defendant’s guilt is in such a state of serious doubt that this Court believes that another jury should be permitted to pass upon the matter.

Reversed and remanded.

RODGERS, JONES, BRADY and SMITH, JJ., concur.
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



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of MCI, Inc. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of the Company. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: March 16, 2005



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|                                           
|                                           
|/s/ Michael D. Capellas                    
|Michael D. Capellas Chief Executive
Officer





|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|                                         
|/s/ Robert T. Blakely                    
|Robert T. Blakely Chief Financial
Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 21

                       Subsidiaries of Guest Supply, Inc.
                       ----------------------------------


          Guest Supply, Inc. has the following subsidiaries:

          1.   Guest International, Ltd., an English corporation.

          2.   Guest Packaging, Inc., a New Jersey corporation.

          3.   Breckenridge-Remy Co., a Delaware corporation.

          4.   Guest International (Canada) Ltd., a Canadian corporation.

          5.   Guest International New Zealand Limited, a New Zealand
               corporation.

          6.   Guest Distribution Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

          7.   McDonald Contract Sales, a Canadian Corporation

          8.   Kapadia Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation (merged into
               Breckenridge-Remy Co. in October 1999)
122 STAT. 5008 PUBLIC LAW 110–443—OCT. 21, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6681: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

Sept. 17, 18, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 30, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–443 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 300 Vine 

Street in New Lenox, Illinois, as the ‘‘Jacob M. Lowell Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JACOB M. LOWELL POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 300 Vine Street in New Lenox, Illinois, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Jacob M. Lowell Post Office 

Building’’. 

(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 ‘‘Jacob M. Lowell Post Office Building’’. 

Approved October 21, 2008. 

Oct. 21, 2008 

[H.R. 6681] 


kgrant on POHRRP4G1 with PUBLAW
#### Kenneth DENOMA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2496.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Nov. 28, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 28, 2014

h0324 

# Order

Clerk March 28, 2014

148174

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148174

COA: 315391

Oakland CC: 08

- 221670

- FC

EDWIN CORREA,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1785

AN ACT

To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code (relating to the vessel hull design protection), to clarify the

distinction between a hull and a deck, to provide factors

for the determination of the protectability of a revised

design, to provide guidance for assessments of substantial similarity, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vessel Hull Design

5 Protection Amendments of 2005’’.
 †

2

S 1785 ES

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNS PROTECTED.

2 Section 1301(a) of title 17, United States Code, is

3 amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the fol4 lowing:

5 ‘‘(2) VESSEL FEATURES.—The design of a ves6 sel hull or deck, including a plug or mold, is subject

7 to protection under this chapter, notwithstanding

8 section 1302(4).’’.

9 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

10 Section 1301(b) of title 17, United States Code, is

11 amended—

12 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘vessel hull,

13 including a plug or mold,’’ and inserting ‘‘vessel hull

14 or deck, including a plug or mold,’’;

15 (2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the

16 following:

17 ‘‘(4) A ‘hull’ is the exterior frame or body of a

18 vessel, exclusive of the deck, superstructure, masts,

19 sails, yards, rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other

20 attachments.’’; and

21 (3) by adding at the end the following:

22 ‘‘(7) A ‘deck’ is the horizontal surface of a ves23 sel that covers the hull, including exterior cabin and
†

3

S 1785 ES

1 cockpit surfaces, and exclusive of masts, sails, yards,

2 rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other attachments.’’.

Passed the Senate November 18, 2005.

Attest:

Secretary.
109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1785

AN ACT

To amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States

ilarity, and for other purposes.vide guidance for assessments of substantial simof the protectability of a revised design, to proa deck, to provide factors for the determinationtion), to clarify the distinction between a hull andCode (relating to the vessel hull design protec-
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

I, Amos Eiran, the Chief Executive Officer of Tissera, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter
      ended October 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
      U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: December 14, 2006


                                     By: /s/ Amos Eiran
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                     Name: Amos Eiran
                                     Title: Chief Executive Officer
http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20111228_reg2.html#262020003200013

Applicant: Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc 4 Irving Pl New York, NY 10003 -3502 Facility: Con Ed-59th St Station 850 12th Ave New York, NY 10019 Application ID: 2-6202-00032/00013 Permit(s) Applied for: Article 19 Air Title V Facility Project is Located: Manhattan, New York County Project Description: The Department has prepared a draft permit and has made a tentative determination to issue a Title V Permit modification for a facility that ge nerates steam and electricity. The purpose of the modification is to include as required under Part 249 the Ne w Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART 6NYCRR Part 249) which will be submitted to the USEPA for approval as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). In accordance with 6NYCRR Part s 621.7(b)(9) and 201-6.4(c), the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the authority to bar issuance of any Title V Facility Permit if it is determined not to be in compliance with applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act or 6NYCRR Part 201. Persons wishing to inspect the subject Title V files, including th e application with all relevant supporting materials, the draft permit, and all other materials available to the DEC (the "permitting authority") that are relevant to this permitting decision should contact the DEC representative listed below. The Draft Permit and Permit Review Report may be viewed and printed from the Department web site at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/32249.html. DEC will evaluate the application and the comments received on it to determine whether to holda public hearing. Comments and requests for a pub lic hearing should be in writing and addressed to the Department representative list ed below. A copy of the Department's permit hearing procedures is available upon request or on the Department web site at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6234.html. Availability of Application Documents: Filed application documents, and Department draf t permits where applicable, are available for inspection during normal business hours at the a ddress of the contact person. To ensure timely service at the time of inspecti on, it is recommended that an ap pointment be made with the contact person. State Environmental Quality Re view (SEQR) Determination: Project is not subject to SEQR because it is a Type II action. SEQR Lead Agency: None Designated State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) Determination: The proposed activity is not subject to review in accordance with SHPA . The permit type is exempt or the activity is being reviewed in accordance with federal historic preservation regulations. Coastal Management: This project is not located in a Coastal Manage ment area and is not subj ect to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. Opportunity for Public Comment: Comments on this project must be submitted in writing to the Contact Person no later than Jan 27, 2012

. Contact: Elizabeth A Clarke NYSDEC Region 2 Headquarters 47-40 21st St Long Island City, NY 11101 (718)482-4997 r2dep@gw.dec.state.ny.us
No. 00-7224.

#### Hambrick v. United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# L_2023183EN.01005901.xml

| 20.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 183/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 183/59

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/265 of 9 February 2023 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in India and Türkiye

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 41 of 10 February 2023
  )

On page 71, in Annex I, sixth row:

for:

| ‘India | Gryphon Ceramics Private Limited
  Cosa Ceramics Pct Limited
  RAK Ceramics Private Limited
  Gris Ceramic LLP
  Grupo Griffin Ceramica LLP
  Alpas Cera LLP | C960’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘India

Gryphon Ceramics Private Limited

Cosa Ceramics Pct Limited

RAK Ceramics Private Limited

Gris Ceramic LLP

Grupo Griffin Ceramica LLP

Alpas Cera LLP

C960’

read:

| ‘India | Gryphon Ceramics Private Limited
  Cosa Ceramics Pct Limited
  RAK Ceramics India Private Limited
  Gris Ceramic LLP
  Grupo Griffin Ceramica LLP
  Alpas Cera LLP | C960’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

‘India

Gryphon Ceramics Private Limited

Cosa Ceramics Pct Limited

RAK Ceramics India Private Limited

Gris Ceramic LLP

Grupo Griffin Ceramica LLP

Alpas Cera LLP

C960’

---
# L_2010137EN.01000301.xml

| 3.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 137/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 137/3

---

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 2 June 2010

appointing a judge to the Court of Justice

(2010/306/EU)

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Articles 5 and 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and as a result of the resignation of Mr Christiaan TIMMERMANS, a judge should be appointed to the Court of Justice for the remainder of the term of office of Mr Christiaan TIMMERMANS, which ends on 6 October 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Articles 5 and 7 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and as a result of the resignation of Mr Christiaan TIMMERMANS, a judge should be appointed to the Court of Justice for the remainder of the term of office of Mr Christiaan TIMMERMANS, which ends on 6 October 2012.

| (2) | The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of Ms Alexandra PRECHAL to perform the duties of Judge of the Court of Justice, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given a favourable opinion on the suitability of Ms Alexandra PRECHAL to perform the duties of Judge of the Court of Justice,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms Alexandra PRECHAL is hereby appointed judge to the Court of Justice for the period from 10 June 2010 to 6 October 2012.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 June 2010.

The President

C. BASTARRECHE

---
No. 74-6345.

#### Lee *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 509 F. 2d 645.
**Cotton Ginnings -- Annual Report (PCG-BB)
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**
**Exhibit31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Harvey Beker, Co-ChiefExecutive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield Corporation, the Managing Owner of The Millburn World Resource Trust (the “Trust”), do herebycertify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-K of The Millburn World Resource Trust ;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this annual report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Trust as of, and for, the periods presented inthis annual report;

 

4. The Trust’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Trust and have:

 

(a)  designed such disclosure controls andprocedures to ensure that material information relating to the Trust, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared;

 

(b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a datewithin 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “EvaluationDate”); and

 

(c) presentedin this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.  The Trust’s other certifying officers and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Trust’s auditorsand the audit committee of the Trust’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

(a) all significant deficienciesin the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affectthe Trust’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data andhave identified for the Trust’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and

 

(b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Trust’s internal controls; and

 

6.  The Trust’s other certifying officers and Ihave indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significantchanges in internal controls or in other factors that could significantlyaffect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.

 
| By:  /s/ Harvey Beker  |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Harvey Beker                |
| Co-Chief Executive  Officer |
| March 30, 2005              |

 

----
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of CyberAds, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Lawrence Levinson, chief executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By: /s/ Lawrence Levinson
    ---------------------
    December 26, 2002
A VECES,

EL REMEDIO ES

PEOR QUE LA 

ENFERMEDAD

Campaña para promover el 

uso correcto de los antibióticos.

“Los antibióticos matan las bacterias 

pero no los virus”

“No siempre son la solución”

“Siempre consulte a su doctor”

“Tomar antibióticos inapropiadamente 

puede ser muy dañino para su salud y 

la de sus hijos”

Los antibióticos NO combaten

los virus.

Como tratar un resfriado 

o la gripe:

Los niños y los adultos con infecciones virales se 

recuperan cuando la enfermedad pasa su curso. Los 

resfriados causados por virus pueden durar dos 

semanas o más.

Medidas que pueden ayudar a una persona a 

sentirse mejor del resfriado o de la gripe:

• Tomar más líquidos 

• Usar un vaporizador o un pulverizador salino 

nasal para aliviar la congestión 

• Aliviar la garganta con trocitos de hielo, con un 

pulverizador para el dolor de garganta, o pastillas (para

jóvenes y adultos) 

Las infecciones virales a veces pueden causar infecciones 

bacteriales. Los pacientes deben informar a sus doctores si

la enfermedad se pone peor o dura mucho tiempo.

Si desea más información en español, llame al

1-888-246-2857

www.cdc.gov/getsmart
Los antibióticos, como la penicilina, NUNCA son la respuesta 

a un simple resfriado, ya que los antibióticos pueden curar 

las infecciones causadas por bacterias, pero NO las infecciones 

o las enfermedades causadas por un virus. Los antibióticos 

NO funcionan contra los virus que causan el resfriado común

o la gripe, entre otras enfermedades.

Así que recuerde que cuando usted utiliza un antibiótico, como la

penicilina, para combatir un virus:

NO CURARÁ la infección.

NO AYUDARÁ a que el paciente se sienta mejor.

NO EVITARÁ que otras personas se contagien.

Algunos datos sobre los virus

Existen muchos tipos de virus que causan resfriados.

Los resfriados comunes son causados por un virus, por lo tanto no

deben ser tratados con antibióticos.

Los niños de menor edad tienden a tener un mayor número de

enfermedades virales.

Consecuencias de automedicarse 

con antibióticos

Las bacterias pueden desarrollar resistencia a los antibióticos cuando éstos se toman innecesariamente.

Debemos pensar que si nuestro hijo se ve afectado por bacterias

resistentes a diferentes antibióticos sus posibilidades de curarse

son menores. Además existe un mayor riesgo de complicaciones

por el uso incontrolado de antibióticos.

NO TOME ANTIBIÓTICOS SIN CONSULTAR 

A SU MÉDICO

El diagnóstico del paciente debe 

ser responsabilidad del médico al 

igual que el uso de antibióticos. 

La selección de un antibiótico 

adecuado es sólo responsabilidad 

de un médico.

Automedicarse con antibióticos 

puede perjudicar su salud.

Lo que necesita saber de los antibióticos

El diagnóstico del paciente debe 

ser responsabilidad del médico al 

igual que el uso de antibióticos. 

La selección de un antibiótico 

adecuado es sólo responsabilidad 

de un médico.

Automedicarse con antibióticos 

puede perjudicar su salud.