alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Garthwaite, Griffin & Co. vs. Tatum.

Where a jury has rendered a verdict in one case, and are called as jurors in another in which the issues are the same, and the evidence will be the same, as in the case already passed upon, the law presumes thorn to be under a disqualifying bias.

*Appeal from. Union Circuit Court.*

Hon. Shelton Watson Circuit Judge.

Carleton for the appellants.

A party has a right to an impartial jury *(sec.*101, *eh.*126 *Dig.$*the jurors having just passed upon a case where the issues and evidence were the same as in this, were incompetent for having formed and expressed an opinion. *Wood vs. Stoddard,**3372 *John. Rep.*194; *Black vs. Millpaugh,*1 *lb.*316; *Rogers vsRogéis,*14 *Wend.*131.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case Was brought here by appeal from a judgment for the defendant below, the appellee here.

It is like the case of *Gould & Co. vs. Tatum,*just decided, being an action of debt upon a note executed at the same time with the note in that case, in which the issues were the same-The same testimony of Whitt and Lee was .given in this case, as in the other, and under like circumstances. A similar motion for a new trial similarly met, and with like result, ^as shown in the transcript.

There was no such evidence as that of the endorsement on the note,,and the reading of the declaration in the other case.

The case of *Gould & Co. vs. Tatum*was first tried; upon the next day this case was called, and the same jurors that tried that case were brought to try this case. It was admitted by the parties that the issues in this were the same as in that case, and that the evidence would be the same, except the note sued on, and the plaintiffs objected to the proposed jurors as disqualified from sitting as a jury in this case. The court overruled the objection.

By their verdict in the other case, the jurors had formed and expressed their opinion upon this case. And the fact that this was done on oath, after hearing all the facts, and after full deliberation thereon, amid the solemnities and under the direction of judicial proceedings, could have no other effect than *ip*incline them to render such verdict as they had rendered the day before. The law presumes them to have been under a disqualifying bias, and the objection of the plaintiff should have been sustained.

This case, free from two of the errors attending *Gould*<$• *Co-vs. Tatum*and charged with the other one just indicated, must go with it, and the judgment is reversed with the instructions given in the other case.
#### Ann Bassett BEAUCHAMP, Appellant, v. E. Pope BASSETT, Appellee.

No. 73-251.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 4, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

MDL Doc ket No. 1869 Misc. No. 07- 489 (P LF/JM F /AK)

ORDER In acc ordanc e with the ac company ing me morandum opinion, the followingis, hereby , ORDERED Plaintiffs’ Motion to C ompel Production of Docume nts [ #340] is 1 GR ANTED IN P ART AND D ENIED IN P ART . It is further, he reby , ORDERED that BN SF produc e for an in camera revie w the five AAR-re lated documents to which plaintiffs objec t to the application of the attorney -client privileg e. The documents should be produc ed to cha mbers within five da

y s of this Order . It is further, he reby , ORDERED that UP produce for a n in camera revie w the one doc ument (PRI V-M-772) to which plaintiffs objec t to the application of the attorney -client privileg e base d on the subject matter (“ client communication to attorne y re attorney

direc ted memora

ndum re tele phone ca ll with BNSF and re quest for attorney advice re r evisions to memorandum”). T he docume nts should be produce d to chamber s within five day s of this Order . It is further, he reby , ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents pre pare d in connec tion with I N RE: RAI LFREI GHT F UEL SURCHARGE ANTI TRUST L I TI GATI ON
This document re lates to: AL LDI RECT PUR CHASER CAS ES

The motion to compel was f iled under se al. Pursuant to the protec tion order in this case , 1 plaintiffs also filed a

public version of the motion. Both the seale d motion and the public version bear their own doc ket number. This opinion will refe r to the docke t number of the public f ilings of all docume nts.STB proc eeding s and designated a s protecte d by work-pr oduct privileg e is DENIED
. Def endants will not have to produc e these documents. It is further, he reby , ORDERED that BN SF will produce for a n in camera revie w those docume nts related to the STB he aring s which B NSF withheld pursua nt to the attorney -client privileg e only , including: BN SF_L OG0000786-787, B NSF_L OG0000788-789, B NSF_L OG0002184, BN SF_L OG0002238, B NSF_L OG0002273-274, B NSF_L OG0010048-049, BN SF_L OG0010071, B NSF_L OG0010455-056, B NSF_L OG0011328, B NSF_L OG0011337, and B NSF_L OG0011338. The documents should be produc ed to chambers within five da y s of this Order. SO ORDERED.

__________________________________________ J OHN M. F ACCI OLA UNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00032

- CR

Shozo Tanaka
v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 426th of Bell County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 79918

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, conclude s that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 9, 2022
**ION
      Networks, Inc.**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT**


**TO
      18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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






**CERTIFICATION**








In
      connection with the periodic report of ION Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-KSB/A, amendment No. 2, for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Norman E. Corn,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
      solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
      Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
      indicated.




A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to ION Networks, Inc. and will be
      retained by ION Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.














Date:July
              11, 2005
            
            By: /s/ Norman E.
                Corn
              Norman
                E. Corn
              Chief
                Executive Officer
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE (1)
                                    HPR INC.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

<S>                                                                                              <C>            <C>
Type of security                                                                                    1997             1996
For the quarter ended March 31,                                                                     
  Common stock outstanding, beginning of period................................................   15,153,000     14,350,000
  Weighted average common stock issued during the period.......................................       85,000        338,000
  Assumed exercise of common share options.....................................................    1,132,000      1,669,000
  Purchase of common stock under the treasury stock method.....................................    (267,000)      (309,000)
                                                                                                 -----------    -----------
  Weighted average number of common shares and common equivalent shares outstanding............   16,103,000     16,050,000
                                                                                                  ==========     ==========

For the nine months ended March 31,                                                                 1997             1996
  Common stock outstanding, beginning of period................................................   15,012,000      7,680,000
  Weighted average common stock issued during the period.......................................       94,000      1,053,000
  Conversion of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock to Common Stock upon the
  Initial Public Offering (2)..................................................................           --      5,525,000
  Assumed exercise of common share options.....................................................    1,285,000      1,557,000
  Purchase of common stock under the treasury stock method.....................................    (292,000)      (113,000)
                                                                                                 -----------    -----------
  Weighted average number of common shares and common equivalent shares outstanding............   16,099,000     15,702,000
                                                                                                  ==========     ==========
<FN>

  (1) All common and common  equivalent  shares have been  restated to reflect a
    2-for-1 capital stock split effected in the form of a 100% stock dividend to
    all  shareholders  of record on April 26,  1996, a 2.5-for-1  capital  stock
    split in 1995 and a 10-for-1 capital stock split in 1993.

  (2) Series  A  Convertible  Preferred  Stock  was  considered  a common  stock
    equivalent prior to the initial public offering.

</FN>
</TABLE>




                                       15
<PAGE>
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

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

          - [CDC-2017-0084; Docket Number NIOSH-298]

# AGENCY:

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

# ACTION:

Notice of availability.

# SUMMARY:

                        NIOSH announces the availability of the final                         *National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction*.                    

# DATES:

The final document was published on July 17, 2018.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The document may be obtained at the following link:                         *https://www.cdc.gov/​niosh/​nora/​councils/​const/​agenda.html*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Emily Novicki, M.A., M.P.H, (                        *NORACoordinator@cdc.gov*), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop E-20, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, phone (404) 498-2581 (not a toll free number).                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On September 27, 2017, NIOSH published a request for public review in the                     **Federal Register**                     [82 FR 45027] of the draft version of the                     *National Occupational Research Agenda for Construction.*                     All comments received were reviewed and addressed where appropriate.                

Frank J. Hearl,

Chief of Staff, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2018-15741 Filed 7-23-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
Exhibit 23



          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


          We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration
          Statements No. 2-97977, No. 33-8245, No. 33-78744 and No. 33-
          65233 of Miltope Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 and No. 33-33752 of 
          Miltope Group, Inc. on Form  S-3 of our report dated March 20, 
          1996, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Miltope 
          Group Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1995.

          /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

          Birmingham, Alabama
          March 29, 1996
#### Ricky WILCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-333.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 20, 1978.

Ricky Wilcher pro se and Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, and James A. Cornelius, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

*1279PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. The judgment and sentence of the court, while indicating the appellant was to receive credit for all time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1) Florida Statutes. *Smith*v. *State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

Remanded for correction of the sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and OTT, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of BT Group plc;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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The company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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the company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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Tony ChanmugamName:
    Tony ChanmugamTitle:
    Group Finance Director
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Vitran Corporation Inc., that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of
Vitran Corporation Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010, 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 Vitran Corporation Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |     |  |                                                       
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  |  | 
|Date: April 28, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RICHARD E. GAETZ                                  
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Richard E. Gaetz
President and
Chief Executive Officer



| |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                    
| |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ SEAN P. WASHCHUK                                               
| |  |  |  |     |  | Sean P. Washchuk
Vice President Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,674
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,907
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,210
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,129
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        367,017
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 474,383
<DEPOSITS>                                     377,333
<SHORT-TERM>                                    53,398
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,226
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,128
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 474,383
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 27,333
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,822
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   573
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                31,728
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,517
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,482
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,729
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      956
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   9
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 14,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,308
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,308
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,403
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.72
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,251
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,018
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      409
<RECOVERIES>                                        17
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,582
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,582
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Wytheville

#### Buford & Others *v.*North Roanoke Land Co.

June 17, 1897.

1. Appeals—Refusal *of bill of review—When petition for appeal m/ust be present*ed.—Under the terms of Section 3455 of the Code the petition for an appeal . from a decree refusing a bill of review to a decree rendered more than six months prior thereto must be presented within six months from the actual date of the decree appealed from, and not from the beginning or the end of the term at which it was rendered.

Motion by appellee to dismiss an appeal from a decree of the Hustings Court of the city of Roanoke.

*Appeal dismissed.*

The opinion states the case.

*Sansbrough da Sail*and *J. S. Fulton,*for the appellants.

*Griffin da Glasgow, Phlegar da Johnson*and *W. W. Berkley,*for the appellees.

Keith, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is before us upon a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the right to appeal was barfed by the limitation prescribed in section 8455 of the Code. So much of that section as is applicable to the point to be decided is as follows:

‘ ‘If the final decree from which an appeal is asked is a decree refusing a bill of review to a decree rendered more than six months prior thereto, no appeal from or supersedeas to such decree so refusing a bill of review shall be allowed, un*617less the petition be presented within six months from the date of such decree.”

The precise point for decision is the time at which the limitation begins to run, and we are of opinion that it is to be computed from the actual date of the decree, and not from the beginning or the end of the term at which it was rendered. The application of this principle to the case before us it is conceded renders necessary the granting of the motion to dismiss, and it is so ordered.

*Appeal dismissed.*