alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary Ray BEASLEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-81-73.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 2, 1982.

M. Jay Farber, Asst. Public Defender, Oklahoma County, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, Robert C. Smith, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

On appeal from his conviction in Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF-79-1587, of Aggravated Assault and Battery upon a Police Officer, After Former Conviction of a Felony, the appellant, in his sole assignment of error, argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish the element of aggravation required by 21 O.S. 1981, § 650.

Officer Terrill Lee Johnson testified that in the early morning hours of April 25, 1979, as he was obtaining personal information from the defendant, whom he had arrested and taken to jail, the defendant stood up and said, “to hell with this, I am getting out of here,” and proceeded to walk briskly to an open door. In the scuffle that ensued, the defendant kicked Officer Johnson above his left ankle on the outside part of his leg. From the record before us, it appears that the single kick was the only blow that was exchanged. Johnson’s leg was fractured and he has spent a great deal of time in hospitals. His original stay in a hospital was for eight (8) days, followed by a week and half at home in a cast. When the bone did not appear to be healing properly, surgery was required and screws were used to keep the bone in place; another week of hospitalization, a month and a half of bed rest and several weeks of further recuperation were required. Officer Johnson also related that additional surgery is needed, and at the time of trial, some six months after the incident, he was still rele*2gated to a “desk job” and could not perform his regular duties.

In construing our statute pertaining to aggravated assault and battery (21 O.S. 1981, § 646) we have consistently held that the term “great bodily injury” is not susceptible of a precise definition, but implies an injury of a graver and more serious character than an ordinary battery. See, *State*v. *Madden,*562 P.2d 1177 (Okl.Cr.1977); *Ainsworth v. State,*490 P.2d 1372 (Okl.Cr.1971); and, *Cox v. State,*361 P.2d 506 (Okl.Cr.1961).

The evidence relating to the nature of the injury inflicted upon Officer Johnson by the defendant amply supports the verdict of the jury. See, *Ainsworth,*supra;*McVicker v. State,*437 P.2d 457 (Okl.Cr.1968); and, *Ryans v. State,*392 P.2d 501 (Okl.Cr.1964).

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., and CORNISH, J., concurs.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of EPL Intermediate, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Stein, Vice President and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                             
|/s/ Joseph Stein                                                             
|Joseph Stein Vice President and Treasurer EPL Intermediate, Inc. May 13, 2005



This certification is made solely for
the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EPL Intermediate, Inc. and will be retained by EPL Intermediate, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Anthony Ciarletto, Plaintiff, *v.*Worden Sand *&*Gravel Co., Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Westchester County,

April 8, 1959.

*Howard H. Schrecke*for defendant.

*Erwin Magenheim*for plaintiff.

Arthur D. Brennan, J.

The plaintiff’s cross motion to restore this action to the Trial Term Calendar is defective in at least two respects: (1) It fails to state the exact or approximate date when the plaintiff first learned of the alleged unauthorized settlement agreed to by his prior attorneys nor does it *621state what steps, if any, were thereafter taken with respect to the prosecution of this action; and (2) It fails to set forth a factual showing that the cause of action asserted in the complaint was and is meritorious. (See *Walsh*v. *Ben Riley’s Arrowhead*Inn, 2 A D 2d 714.) In addition it should also appear that by stipulation or order the plaintiff’s present attorney has been properly substituted for the former attorneys for the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the cross motion is denied but with leave to renew the same upon proper papers provided said renewal is made returnable by not later than April 29, 1959. The defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute, is adjourned to the return date of said renewed cross motion, if such be made, but if the same be not made, then to April 29, 1959.

Settle order on notice.
----

Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each ofthe undersigned officers of Newport Gold, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the"Company"), does hereby certify, [to such officer's knowledge], that:

The Form 10-QSB for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2005****(the"Form *10-QSB*") of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form *10-QSB* fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

**
Dated: November 14, 2005/s/ Derek Bartlett
 
Derek Bartlett, Chief Executive Officer
 
 

 
Dated: November 14, 2005/s/ John Arnold
 
John Arnold, Chief Financial Officer
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

**
S. Con. Res. 80 Agreed to February 10, 2000

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close

of business on Thursday, February 10, 2000, or Friday, February

11, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution

by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or

adjourned until noon on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, or until such

time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader or

his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon

on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs

first; and that when the House adjourns on the legislative day

of Wednesday, February 16, 2000, Thursday, February 17, 2000,

or Friday, February 18, 2000, on a motion offered pursuant to

this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee,

it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 29, 2000,

for morning-hour debate, or until noon on the second day after

Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this

concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker

of the House, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority

Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House, shall

notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, to
S. Con. Res. 80—2

reassemble whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall

warrant it.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
#### Fred HUTTIG, Appellant, v. Hope HUTTIG, Appellee.

No. 87-3107.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 6, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1988.

*1052Kirkpatrick & Lockhart and Warren R. Trazenfeld, Miami, and Scott S. Small, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Barbara B. Gimenez, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Where, as here, the only significant marital asset of the parties was the marital home which, under a view of the evidence most favorable to the appellee, *see Walter v. Walter,*464 So.2d 538 (Fla.1985), had an equity of $100,000 at the time of the dissolution of the parties’ eleven-year marriage; the wife has a net worth and earnings equal to or greater than the husband; and, as the trial court correctly found, there are no special equities which might justify some disparity in the distribution of the marital assets, the trial court abused its discretion in requiring the appellant-husband to deed his interest in the marital home to the wife in exchange for “a non-interest bearing Note and Mortgage ... in the amount of $40,000.00 which shall be due and payable upon the earlier to occur of the sale of the Property, the Wife remarrying or permanently vacating the Property.” 1

We agree with the husband that there is no justification for awarding the wife sixty percent and the husband forty percent of the present equity of the marital home and no justification for freezing the husband’s interest in the property at a fixed amount and thereby denying him both the right to participate in the future appreciation, if any, of the property and the right to the use of the money for a projected ten years.

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage which requires the husband to transfer his interest in the marital home to the wife and the wife to execute a note and mortgage to the husband. We direct the trial court to modify the judgment to recite that the marital home shall be held by the parties as tenants in common with the wife to have the exclusive use and occupancy of it until the children have either reached the age of eighteen, married, died, or permanently vacated the home, at which time the home is to be sold with the parties to divide the proceeds equally after allowing them appropriate credits. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions to modify.

1

. Our concern that the wife's promissory note was largely illusory in that it need not be paid in her lifetime was alleviated when at oral argument her counsel agreed that the house must be sold when the younger of the parties’ two children reaches his majority.
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

April 13, 2010

via email and regulations.gov

Esta Rosenberg Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. § 40109 (Detroit-Sao Paulo)

Docket DOT-OST-2010-0089

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, Delta urges that the application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Service ListCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing has been served this 13 th day of April, 2010, upon the following persons via email:

carl.nelson@aa.com howard_kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

hkamen@coair.com

dan.weiss@coair.com rbkeiner@crowell.com (for Continental) mrosia@crowell.com (for Continental) jeffrey.manley@united.com julie.oettinger@united.com robert.land@jetblue.com jhill@dlalaw.com (for JetBlue) dkirstein@yklaw.com (for Spirit) jyoung@yklaw.com (for Spirit) paul.gretch@dot.gov brian.hedberg@dot.gov byerlyjr@state.gov john.allen@faa.gov

lester.robinson@wcaa.us emily.neuberger@wcaa.us joe.cambron@wcaa.us

mike.orr@airlineinfo.com
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

          - 26 CFR Part 1
          - [REG-113903-10]
          - RIN 1545-BJ59

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.

# SUMMARY:

This document cancels a public hearing on proposed rulemaking that provides guidance relating to the allocation and apportionment of interest expense.

# DATES:

The public hearing, originally scheduled for April 3, 2012 at 10 a.m. is cancelled.

      ( print page 19155)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Funmi Taylor of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and a notice of public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on Tuesday January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2240) announced that a public hearing was scheduled for April 3, 2012, at 10 a.m. in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is under section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code.                

The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking expired on March 13, 2012. The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations and a notice of public hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Monday, March 26, 2012, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for April 3, 2012, is cancelled.

LaNita VanDyke,

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).

[FR Doc. 2012-7609 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### In re Patricia SOUTH.

No. 87-OB-0231.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re South, Patricia; applying for a reader and extended time in which to take Louisiana State Bar Exam.

Granted. Relator’s requests are granted.
## NO. 12

- 19

- 00300

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: JOHN DOGGETT, M.D., INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JERRY LLOY D DOGGETT, RELATOR §
§
§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator, John Doggett, M.D., independent executor of the Estate of Jerry Lloyd Doggett, filed this original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondent to vacate an order signed on March 7, 2019. Because Respondent signed the order outside her plenary power and the order materially changed substantive adjudicative portions of a 2016 judgment, o n November 13, this Court conditionally granted Relator’s petition and directed Respondent, the Honorable Janice Stone of the County Court at Law in C herokee County, Texas, to vacate the 2019 order.
See In re Doggett , No. 12

- 19

- 00300

- CV, 2019 WL 5956676 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Nov. 13, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). By an order signed on November 14, Respondent complied with this Court’s opinion and ord er, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot

. Opinion delivered November 2 7 , 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)

## COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 2 7 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 00300

- CV

JOHN DOGGETT, M.D., INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JER RY LLOYD DOGGETT, Relator V.

HON. JANICE STONE , Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by John Doggett, M.D., Independent Executor of the Estate of Jerry Lloyd Doggett; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12

- 19

- 00300

- CV and a party in trial court cause number 10698, pending on the docket of the County Court at Law of Cherokee County, Texas . Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on September 4, 2019, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue , it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot

. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned officers of NeuroMetrix, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ SHAI N. GOZANI, M.D., PH.D. Shai N. Gozani, M.D., Ph.D. Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ THOMAS T. HIGGINS Thomas T. Higgins Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerNovember 12, 2009


This
certification is being furnished and not filed, and shall not be incorporated into any document for any purpose, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Securities Act of
1933.

---



QuickLinks
RE: Case No. 15-0285 DATE

COA #: 12-14-00327-CV TC#: 13-00267

STYLE: IN THE INTEREST OF K.W. AND P.W., CHIL

Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied 

petition for review in the above-referenced 

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF 

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 

TYLER, TX 75702
exv10w28



 






EXHIBIT 10.28




July 26, 2005




Gene Ray




Dear Gene:




     We are very pleased that you have agreed to serve as the non-executive Chairman of the Board
of Directors of Global Secure Corp. As we’ve discussed, Global Secure is focused on securing the
homeland with integrated products and services for the critical incident response community
worldwide. Global Secure is made up of three business units – Global Secure Systems, Global Secure
Training and Global Secure Safety, each working to provide a comprehensive solution to our
customers incorporating information and communications technologies, training and exercise
programs, and protective equipment.



     As the Chairman of our Board of Directors you will receive a compensation package consisting
of the following: 1) upon joining the Board of Directors, you will receive a grant of options to
purchase 1,000,000 shares of common stock of the Company that would vest as follows: 250,000
immediately upon joining the Board of Directors, the remaining 750,000 in equal tranches
semi-annually over 2 years commencing six months after the commencement of your service and
dependent upon your continued service as a director and subject to the terms and conditions of our
2005 Stock Incentive Plan and the governing Stock Option Agreement, 2) upon joining the Board of
Directors and on each anniversary of service thereafter, you will receive a $50,000 annual fee, and
3) you will also receive a fee of $5,000 for attendance at each meeting of the Board of Directors
and each Committee on which you serve if such Committee meetings are held on days different than a
meeting of the full Board of Directors.



     Global Secure is pleased to welcome you.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,

 	 
	 	/s/ Craig R. Bandes
 	 
	 	Craig R. Bandes 	 
	 	President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Charles Leo GUILBEAU v. Dulan W. FONTENOT and Victor Fontenot, et al.

No. 87-CC-1150.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1987.

In re Brown, Joseph Larry; Brown, Brenda; applying for writ of certiorari *80and/or review, and mandamus; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW87-0273; Parish of Vermilion, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, Nos. 85-50006, 85-50009, 85-50008-D, and 85-50039.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 566.

Granted. See order in 87-CC-1138.