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

No. 47414.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 29, 1973.

Lawrence D. Arrington, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Ben H. Walley, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Chief Justice.

This eternal triangle case is proof that having an affair with another man’s wife can be a dangerous adventure.

Indicted for the murder of Ira Hinton, Jr., and convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of Perry County, Kenneth *162Powell appealed to this Court. He contends that his conviction is contrary to the law and evidence.

Defendant went to a tavern looking for his wife. She was there. Ira “Night Hawk” Hinton, Jr., who had previously been out with defendant’s wife, was also in the tavern. Defendant then went to his car and got a pistol and placed it in his pocket. As he walked toward the tavern his wife came out and sat down on a bench. “Night Hawk” followed and sat down beside her. Defendant approached them and asked his wife what she was doing with “Night Hawk up in her face.” Defendant’s wife told him that she was not going home, whereupon defendant slapped her. “Night Hawk” then said, “She’s going with me, and you’re not going to do a damn thing about it.” Defendant, with gun in hand, struck “Night Hawk” on the side of the head, knocking him off the bench, then kicked him. As the unarmed “Night Hawk” was trying to get up, defendant hit him again and as he did so the gun fired. “Night Hawk” was mortally wounded.

Defendant argues that the testimony shows that the gun was fired accidentally, and, therefore, he is not guilty of manslaughter. He contends that he is exonerated by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated section 2219 (1956), wherein it is provided that a killing shall be excusable “(b) when committed by accident and misfortune, in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation.” This section does not excuse an offense in the commission of which a deadly weapon is used. Wood v. State, 64 Miss. 761, 2 So. 247 (1887). Nor does it excuse the killing of a human being when done in the course of an unlawful act. Long v. State, 163 Miss. 535, 141 So. 591 (1932).

Affirmed.

SMITH, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14700]


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

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY


Meeting of the Regional Resource Stewardship Council

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council (RRSC) will hold 
a meeting on Monday and Tuesday, July 30-31, 2018, to consider various 
matters. The RRSC was established to advise TVA on its natural 
resources and stewardship activities and the priority to be placed 
among competing objectives and values. Notice of this meeting is given 
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday-Tuesday, July 30-31, 2018, 
from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m., EDT.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at The Westin Chattanooga, 801 Pine 
Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. An individual requiring special 
accommodation for a disability, should let the contact below know at 
least a week in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbie Perdue, 865-632-6113, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d1f1c0d180f1908183d090b1c531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c3e3d2c392e3829391c282a3d723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting agenda includes the following 
items:

1. Introductions
2. Update on Floating Cabins Regulations
3. Presentation on the Proposed Natural Resource Plan Refresh and the 
scoping of the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement
4. Tennessee Water Supply Update Report
5. Public Comments
6. Council Discussion and Advice

    The meeting is open to the public. Verbal comments from the public 
will be accepted Tuesday, July 31 starting at 9:30 a.m., EDT, for no 
more than one hour. Registration to speak is from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 
a.m., EDT, at the door. Handout materials should be limited to one 
printed page. Written comments may be sent by mailing to the Regional 
Resource Stewardship Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 
Summit Hill Drive, WT-9-D, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Joseph J. Hoagland,
Vice President, Enterprise Relations and Innovation, Tennessee Valley 
Authority.
[FR Doc. 2018-14700 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8120-08-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### JAMES ROWLAND, defendant below, appellant, *vs.*NOAH BURTON, negro, plaintiff below, respondent.

A notched stick admitted in evidence, with the oath of the party, as a good^jgg^of . original entries.

Appeal from justice of the peace.

Narr. in assumpsit. Pleas, non-assumpsit, payment, discount, and the act of limitation. Issues.

The plaintiff- below was sworn on the voire dire to prove his books; when he produced as his book of original entries a small stick, cut and notched in a variety of ways, by which he undertook to prove an account running through two or three years, and consisting of a number of items. He was fully examined on his book,''and the accuracy of his entries tested by an account made out from it some time before. They corresponded with the exception of one item ; and it was afterwards ascertained that one of the notches had been defaced by the breaking of the stick.

In this way he proved the following account:

1 day working in garden; self, ... 75

Work bj self and boy, 50

Getting hay on the marsh, $5 00

1 day going after oxen, 75

3 days work of boy, at 25, 75

3 stacks of hay, at $2 00, 6 00

*289
      *2*days going after hay; self and boy, 1 75

1 1-2 days hauling drift from sea shore, 75

1 day’s work on cape, 75

1-2 of an ox hide, - 1 40

Hire of oxen, ■* 4 00

1 day’s work of self and Jacob Wesscls, 1 50

1 day’s work of self and another, 1 50

$25 40

*C. G. Ridgely,*for plaintiff.

*Cullen,*for defendant.

The court permitted the stick to go before the jury, with the party’s oath that the notches were made at the time the work was done, *{Digest,*89,) and the plaintiff had a verdict.

Judgment for plaintiff.
#### Lydia WILLIAMSON, Appellant, v. Floyd WILLIAMSON, Appellee.

No. 41830.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 29, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 253 So.2d 750.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN, JJ„ dissent.
Opinion issued March 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-11-01015-CR ____________

KEVIN DEWAYNE WARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1778267

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kevin Dewayne Ward, has filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal. The motion complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). 
2

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). We have not issued an opinion in the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(b).

Accordingly, we reinstate and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**FROZEN      FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

|                                   |   |                                                                                                                                                             |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:                November 9, 2006 |   | /s/                Thomas G. Yetter                                                                                                                              |   |
|                                   |   | Thomas                G. YetterSenior                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer)  |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Diaz, Appellant.

[655 NYS2d 544]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.), rendered September 29, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

At the *Hinton*hearing *(see, People v Hinton,*31 NY2d 71, *cert denied*410 US 911), the undercover police officer testified that he intended to return in the near future in an undercover capacity to the street corner where the defendant was arrested, the street where the defendant lived, and the area of the courthouse. He had other cases pending on the same floor of the courthouse where the trial was being held. He also had cases pending before the Grand Jury. Some of the subjects of his investigations were not apprehended. The defendant’s accomplice was at large, and a bench warrant had been issued for him. The officer had received threats, including a threat from this defendant, who warned him during the course of the crime that he "better not be a cop” if he knew what was good for him. To conceal his identity, the officer parked his car three blocks from the courthouse, and entered the building from the back.

*458The officer’s testimony established that there were overriding interests justifying a limitation of the defendant’s right to a public trial *(see, People v Martinez,*82 NY2d 436; *People v Kin Kan,*78 NY2d 54, 58; *People v Feliciano,*228 AD2d 519; *People v Wooten,*221 AD2d 674; *People v Simmons,*215 AD2d 511). Based upon that hearing testimony, the court closed the courtroom during the officer’s trial testimony. However, the court insured that closure was no broader than necessary to protect the officer’s interest, by permitting any attorneys with business with the court to be present. Accordingly, the defendant’s right to a public trial was not violated *(see, People v Kin Kan, supra,*at 58).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1

                   Certification of Chief Executive Officer
               of GeoResources, Inc Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


     I, J. P. Vickers, certify that:

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of GeoResources,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
J. P. Vickers, 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, that:

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

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



                                       /S/  J. P. Vickers
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       J. P. Vickers
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       August 14, 2002
11/09/2010 11:56 2022675075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 20 

DEPARTMENT OF 

HANSPORTATION 

CKET OPERATIONS 

) NOV-q P |: lb 

Hart]c>- LcRoy 

19927 Sandyedge Drive 

Cornelius, NC 28031-6025 

October 27. 2010 

Adminisliaioi' J. Randolph Babbitt 

Room lOTO, 800 Independence Ave,SW, Wash.DC 20591 

Re: Support these cliangcs to tl« FAA's Flight Tirae/Dutj- Time NPRM 

Dear AdiniDistniior Biibbitt; 

As a US commercial pilot reviewing the FAA Notice of Proposed Rnlejnaking (NPRM) on Flight crew mcinbcr 

Dut>^ and Rest Requirements I am pleased that the majoritj-of ij>c NPRW represents an impiwement to cuirent 

regulations and covers all coramercjal. opei^ons in the spirit of "One Level of Safetj." However, there arc sonic 

specific ilcms that need to be changed in order to midgate fodgue for die professional pilot. 

1) The flight time limit should not be increased 25% from S hours to 10 hours. 

2) Tlic augmented (3 person) flight time limit should not be increased 25% from 12 to 15 boms. 

i>) Rest requirements should be 10 hours domestic and 14 hours intcmationaL 9 hours, reducible to 8 hours is not 

eaougli time to achieve restorative sleep, eat, and attend to personal hj'giene between did}' periods. 

4) DojnestJff augmentation should not be allowed. 

As a professional commercial aviator working at high fpecd in congested airfpace, and through arduous weather 

conditions, I can tell you that fatigue midgation is paramount to improving the safet>' of the travelling public. Tlte 

NTSB has held fatigue on its "Most Wanted List" for ticarty y-ears because it is a problem that flight crews deal with 

on a daily basis. Tltis FAA NPRM will go a long way to reducing fatigue and increasing safetj- if these items are 

addressed. 

Sincerely, 

'WLSA' 

Captain Hartlej- D, LeRoy. US Airways 

704g9400(;5 

hdleroy@gmail. com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
"THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               6
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                      1,350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,921
<PP&E>                                          13,914
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,511
<BONDS>                                          4,254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,071
<SALES>                                          6,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,471
<CGS>                                            5,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   467
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 241
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    205
<INCOME-TAX>                                        88
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                117
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       117
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
        

</TABLE>
#### Connie L. NELSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-999.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Official Journal L 9/2007

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 9 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5016 January 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 9

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5016 January 2007

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2007 of 15 January 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 30/2007 of 15 January 2007 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 January 2007 | 3 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EC) No 29/2007 of 15 January 2007 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

Commission Regulation (EC) No 30/2007 of 15 January 2007 fixing the import duties in the cereals sector applicable from 16 January 2007

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### CAMALON, INC., et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida et al., Appellees.

No. U-11.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 15, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 99.9



SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.



Canadian Securities Regulatory Authorities c/o
British Columbia Securities Commissions
P.O. Box 10142, Pacific Centre
701 West Georgia Street
Vancouver, BC V7Y 1L2



United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C.
20549



Dear Sirs.



RE;  Miramar Mining Corporation  Form 40F / Annual Information Form



We hereby



1.

consent to the use of our name as the entity who prepared the preliminary assessment to consider the economic potential of the Hope Bay belt and who participated in the preparation of a feasibility stuffy of the Doris North project as set out in Miramar Mining Corporations Form 40F / Annual Information Form to be dated on or about March 29, 2005 and which is to be filed with your (the AIF); and



2.

confirm that we have read the sections Doris North  Development Planand Estimated Capital and Operating Costs and do not have any reason to believe that these sections in the AIF contain any misrepresentation.







Yours truly,

SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.





Signed



E.M. Rykaart, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer
#### Terry L. YOUMANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-365.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 20, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Eddie C. GRIFFIN v. Frank BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 62039.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Eddie C. Griffin, applying for remedial writs. Parish of Tangipahoa.

Denied.
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1070

To provide that certain politically appointed Federal officers may not receive

cash awards for a certain period during a Presidential election year,

to prohibit cash awards to Executive Schedule officers, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 28 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. STEVENS) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide that certain politically appointed Federal officers

may not receive cash awards for a certain period during

a Presidential election year, to prohibit cash awards to

Executive Schedule officers, 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. PROHIBITION ON CASH AWARDS TO CERTAIN

4 FEDERAL OFFICERS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 5, United

6 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 4507

7 the following new sections:
2

•S 1070 IS

1 ‘‘§ 4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential

2 election year

3 ‘‘(a) For purposes of this section, the term—

4 ‘‘(1) ‘Presidential election period’ means any

5 period beginning on June 1 in a calendar year in

6 which the popular election of the President occurs,

7 and ending on January 20 following the date of such

8 election; and

9 ‘‘(2) ‘senior politically appointed officer’ means

10 any officer who during a Presidential election period

11 serves—

12 ‘‘(A) in a Senior Executive Service position

13 and is not a career appointee as defined under

14 section 3132(a)(4); or

15 ‘‘(B) in a position of a confidential or pol16 icy-determining character under schedule C of

17 subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of

18 Federal Regulations.

19 ‘‘(b) No senior politically appointed officer may re20 ceive an award under the provisions of this subchapter

21 during a Presidential election period.

22 ‘‘§ 4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive

23 Schedule officers

24 ‘‘No officer may receive a cash award under the pro25 visions of this subchapter, if such officer serves in an Ex-
3

•S 1070 IS

1 ecutive Schedule position under subchapter II of chapter

2 53.’’.

3 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—

4 The table of sections for chapter 45 of title 5, United

5 States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relat6 ing to section 4507 the following:

‘‘4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential election year.

‘‘4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive Schedule officers.’’.

Æ
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Lael N. BATCHELOR, Relator, v. Honorable Warren H. EDWARDS, Judge of the Orange County Criminal Court of Record, Division “A”, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 23, 1970.

Prohibition denied.