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

No. F-76-727.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 1, 1977.

*897Ray Parks, McAlester, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Robert L. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan Foster, Legal Intern, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Joe Swboni, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in the District Court, Pittsburg County, Case No. CRF-75-243, with the offense of Larceny of Domestic Animal, After Former Conviction of a Felony, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 1716 and § 51. The case was tried to a jury, and a guilty verdict was returned. Punishment was assessed at ten (10) years’ imprisonment. From said judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

We deem it unnecessary to recite the facts of this case inasmuch as we agree with the defendant’s contention that the prosecuting attorney committed reversible error by making a prejudicial remark during his closing argument to the jury. The prejudicial remark appears in the record as follows:

> “MR. WHITTINGTON: He didn’t even wait— he got on the stand there, they told you— Mr. Foor his witness told you he was on parole. He didn’t wait until he got off parole to start stealing. Give him a second chance to try again, to get out and start stealing. *He couldn’t wait until he got finished to start stealing the cattle again.*

> “MR. PARKS: Your Honor, I am going to have to object again. May we approach the bench?

> “THE COURT: Bring your book this time Mrs. Helen.

> “COUNSEL APPROACH BENCH OUT OF HEARING OF JURY

> “MR. PARKS: I am objecting to the argument that has been made about this man previously stealing cattle. It has brought into issue something that is not in evidence, and as a matter of fact if this man has been tried and charged with— convicted of cattle theft, this case was reversed and the case dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals, and I move for a mistrial at this time, and object to any testimony on the part of the District Attorney as to stealing cattle in the past. “THE COURT: For the purpose of the closing arguments, I am going to allow both sides the same latitude on closing arguments, that is your argument on the evidence. For that reason your motion for mistrial will be denied and exceptions allowed.”

It is to be noted that defense counsel’s assertions were not denied by the prosecutor. The emphasized statement was an attempt by the State to bring to the jury’s attention the fact that the defendant had previously been convicted of the crime of Larceny of Domestic Animals. This conviction was, however, subsequently reversed and dismissed by this Court in *Swboni v. State,*Okl.Cr., 514 P.2d 416 (1973), and thus it was highly improper for the prosecutor to bring this to the attention of the jury inasmuch as it would have been reversible error in the instant case even if the other conviction had not been reversed. See, *O’Brien v. State,*Okl.Cr., 540 P.2d 579 (1975); also see, *Noyes v. State,*Okl.Cr., 516 P.2d 1368 (1973).

In accordance with the authority above set forth, the judgment and sentence is REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP., A NEVADA 

CORPORATION, G&T CONVEYOR CO., A FLORIDA 

CORPORATION

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC., A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION, TIERCO MARYLAND INC., A 

DELAWARE CORPORATION, BUSCH 

ENTERTAINMENT CORP., A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION, CEDAR FAIR LP, A DELAWARE 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PARAMOUNT PARKS 

INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, GREAT 

AMERICA LLC, AN ILLINOIS COMPANY, KKI, 

LLC, A DELAWARE COMPANY, MAGIC 

MOUNTAIN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, 

PARK MANAGEMENT CORP., A CALIFORNIA 

CORPORATION, RIVERSIDE PARK 

ENTERPRISES, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS 

COMPANY, SIX FLAGS OVER GEORGIA II, L.P., A 

DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP, SIX FLAGS ST. 

LOUIS, LLC, A MISSOURI COMPANY, TEXAS 

FLAGS, LTD., A TEXAS PARTNERSHIP, 

ASTROWORLD, L.P., A DELAWARE 

PARTNERSHIP, DARIEN LAKE THEME PARK 

AND CAMPING RESORT, INC., A NEW YORK 

CORPORATION, ELITCH GARDENS, L.P., A 

COLORADO PARTNERSHIP, KNOTT'S BERRY 

FARM, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, KINGS 

ISLAND COMPANY, A DELAWARE 
 

CORPORATION, CEDAR FAIR, AN OHIO 

PARTNERSHIP

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1776

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:07-cv-00127-LPS-MPT, 

Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOSEPH N. HOSTENY, III, Niro, Haller & Niro, Chicago, 

IL, argued for plaintiffs-appellants.

MATTHEW B. LOWRIE, Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, 

MA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by 

AARON W. MOORE, LUCAS I. SILVA. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 17, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE VI

TRANSPORT

TRANSPORT

Article 96

(ex Article 76 TEC)

(ex Article 76 TEC)

1.   The imposition by a Member State, in respect of transport operations carried out within the Union, of rates and conditions involving any element of support or protection in the interest of one or more particular undertakings or industries shall be prohibited, unless authorised by the Commission.

2.   The Commission shall, acting on its own initiative or on application by a Member State, examine the rates and conditions referred to in paragraph 1, taking account in particular of the requirements of an appropriate regional economic policy, the needs of underdeveloped areas and the problems of areas seriously affected by political circumstances on the one hand, and of the effects of such rates and conditions on competition between the different modes of transport on the other.

After consulting each Member State concerned, the Commission shall take the necessary decisions.

3.   The prohibition provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply to tariffs fixed to meet competition.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly
Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”),
I, L’Sheryl D. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) |  | To
my knowledge, 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 Fund.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                   
|------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 16, 2011 |  | /s/ L’Sheryl D. Hudson                            
|                    |  | L’Sheryl D. Hudson
        Chief Financial Officer
April 14, 2011

Mr. John Newberry Chief Pilot, BFTC Corporate Shuttle Bombardier, Inc.
P.O. Box 7707 One Learjet Way Wichita, KS 67209

Dear Mr. Newberry:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 125.327 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your March 21, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Bombardier, Inc. into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-0335), but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

Additionally, you may also submit a deviation request in accordance with 14 CFR 125.3. A request for deviation authority must be submitted to the applicable Flight Standards District Office, not less than 60 days prior to the date of intended operations. A request for deviation authority must contain a complete statement of the circumstances and justification for the deviation requested.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3

Project No.: AFS-11-243-E

Project Officer: _______________ ARM-107:DStaples:4/11/11:Doc#32305
ARM-1/100/107:ARM-100

Statistics: Reject Letter.DOC, 387 words Original, 11 Apr 2011 16:09 Style Index 12 **Excellent** for General Writing Average Sentence Length 18 **Excellent**
Passive Index 0 **Excellent**

MR JOHN NEWBERRY
CHIEF PILOT BFTC CORPORATE SHUTTLE
BOMBARDIER INC
PO BOX 7707
ONE LEARJET WAY
WICHITA KS 67209
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FIVE

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

TITLE II

APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS

APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS

Article 46

Upon accession, Croatia shall be considered as being an addressee, in accordance with the original Treaties, of directives and decisions within the meaning of Article 288 of the TFEU. Except with regard to directives and decisions which have entered into force pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 297(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 297(2) of the TFEU, Croatia shall be considered as having received notification of such directives and decisions upon accession.

---
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.

Octo ber 7 , 2014 

# Order

Clerk Octo ber 7 , 2014

146440 ( 1 39 )

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 146440

v COA: 306618

Court of Claims: 11

- 000033

- MT

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_______________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- appellant to file a response to

defendant

- appellee’s supplemental authority is GRANTED. The response submitted on

Octo ber 1 , 2014, is accepted for filing.
# C_2016203EN.01001801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/18

---

Article 29

Where an agreement or contract for the exchange of scientific or industrial information in the nuclear field between a Member State, a person or an undertaking on the one hand, and a third State, an international organisation or a national of a third State on the other, requires, on either part, the signature of a State acting in its sovereign capacity, it shall be concluded by the Commission.

Subject to the provisions of Articles 103 and 104, the Commission may, however, on such conditions as it considers appropriate, authorise a Member State, a person or an undertaking to conclude such agreements.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-02-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                             208
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      581
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,631
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,479
<PP&E>                                          10,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,661
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,343
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,988
<SALES>                                          8,893
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,893
<CGS>                                            4,861
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,965
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
# Mississippi_county_differential
1

NUMBER 13-15-00189-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

LEONARD SANCHEZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

O R D E R

Before Justices Valdez, Rodriguez, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Leonard Sanchez, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number 14-CR-2699-E. The trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of 
2

appeal is not made a part of the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 

37.1, 44.3, 44.4.

Within thirty days of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Larry M. 

Cunningham, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification. 

If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is 

further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of this notice, 

identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; see also, e.g., Carroll v. State, No. 04-03-00473-CR, 2003 

Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication) 

(certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that 

defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The 

motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations 

therein must be true and supported by the record. Cf. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 

316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that 

recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of 

record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting 

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1,

10.2.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

17th day of April 2015.
Hotline

United States Department of Agriculture • Office of Inspector General

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

USDA

Report Violations of Laws and Regulations Relating t USDA

✔ Criminal Activity, such as:

• Bribery

• Smuggling 

• Theft

• Fraud 

• Endangerment of Public Health or Safety

✔ Mismanagement / Waste of Funds 

✔ Workplace Violence

✔ Employee Misconduct

✔ Research Misconduct

✔ Conflict of Interest

202.690.2474

or

United States Department of Agriculture

Office of Inspector General

PO Box 23399

Washington, DC 20026-3399

www.usda.gov/oig/

usda.hotline@oig.usda.gov

The identity of complainants is protected under the 

provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.

write ➤

website ➤

fax ➤

e-mail ➤

message center ➤ 800.424.9121
bmx10b




Consent of Attorney






	 	Jeffrey H. Mackay
	 	Attorney At Law
	 	4871 Narragansett Avenue
	 	San Diego, California 92107
	 	jeffesq@jurisnexus.com
	 	 
	Blackhawk Mountain Productions, Inc.	 
	1835A S. Centre City Pkwy, Suite 415	 
	Escondido, California 92025	 
	 	 
	 	 
	RE: Form SB-1 of Blackhawk Mountain Productions, Inc. filed with the Securities and
	Exchange Commission on or about May 5, 2002 (“Form SB-1”).
	 	 
	Gentlemen,	 
	 	 
	The undersigned hereby consents to the use of its name in the Form SB-1 and the
	use of my opinion of legality filed as an exhibit to the form SB-1 Registration.
	 	 
	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
	/S/ Jeffrey H. Mackay	 
	Jeffrey H. Mackay, Esq.	 
	April 30, 2002	 








Page E-2






Page 61
#### DELAFIELD, MARSH, PORTER & HOPE, Appellants, v. George L. LONG, Joseph W. Ferris and Henry Leifert, as Trustees under a Declaration of Trust Dated as of July 1, 1938, Appellees.

Nos. 46-51.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 30, 1939.

Delafield, Marsh, Porter & Hope, of New York City (John Ross Delafield and Eugene Blanc, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Charles H. Kriger, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for appellees.

Before L. HAND, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Orders affirmed.
#### Hubert F. LAUGHARN, as Trustee of the Estate of Jack Dave Sterling, Bankrupt, Appellant, v. Nat ROGAN, Collector of Internal Revenue of the United States of America, Appellee.

No. 9146.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1939.

Raphael Dechter, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered appeal in above cause dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and that the mandate of this court in this cause issue forthwith.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1235 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1235

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide that the term of office of certain members of the Merit 
 Systems Protection Board shall be extended by a period of 1 year, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``MSPB Temporary Term Extension Act''.

SEC. 2. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD MEMBERS: TERM EXTENSION AND 
              LIMITATION ON SERVICE.

    The term of office of any member of the Merit Systems Protection 
Board appointed under section 1202 of title 5, United States Code, 
serving as such a member on the date of enactment of this Act shall be 
extended for a period of one year beyond the date the member's service 
would otherwise end under subsection (c) of such section.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1235

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To provide that the term of office of certain members of the Merit 
 Systems Protection Board shall be extended by a period of 1 year, and 
                          for other purposes.
```
#### Gloria Laura Morgan VANDERBILT, Petitioner, v. Guy T. HELVERING, Respondent.

No. 58.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1939.

F. Sims McGrath, of New York City, for petitioner.

Morton K. Rothschild, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before L. HAND, CHASE, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed on authority of Van Wart v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 295 U.S. 112, 55 S.Ct. 660, 79 L.Ed. 1336.