alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 22, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JUSTIN ALLEN STRATTON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Washington County

No. 37485 Robert E. Cupp, Judge

No. E2014-00816-CCA-R3-CD – Filed April 17, 2015

D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., J., concurring.

I write separately because I respectfully disagree with that portion of the 

majority’s opinion which concludes that the facts relevant to the issue whether the three 

co-defendants were accomplices are subject to only one interpretation. In my mind, the 

following facts at least raise the inference that Ms. Holtsclaw was an accomplice. 

On the day in question, Ms. Holtsclaw was drinking heavily and “partying” with 

the Defendant. Ms. Holtsclaw saw the Defendant leaving Numan’s as she was entering 

the bar, and she noticed that the Defendant was angry. The victim was also at Numan’s 

at the time and eventually left the bar with Ms. Holtsclaw and Ms. Harold. Ms. 

Holtsclaw suggested that the Defendant and Mr. Phillips meet herself, the victim, and 

Ms. Harold at Sunoco. However, after arriving at Sunoco, Ms. Holtsclaw saw the 

Defendant, who was driving an SUV that she did not recognize, parked behind a car wash 

near the gas station. She testified that the Defendant was “apparently following” them. 

Ms. Holtsclaw spoke with the Defendant on his cell phone, and when Ms. 

Holtsclaw, the victim, and Ms. Harold left Sunoco, the Defendant continued to follow 

them on back roads in a remote area of the county. The Defendant flashed his lights and 

blew the SUV’s horn, apparently signaling Ms. Holtsclaw to pull the car over, which she 

did. She knew the Defendant had a gun as well as “the kind of things the Defendant did.” 

Ms. Holtsclaw said that she “had an idea” of what was going to happen when she pulled 

over. After the Defendant shot the victim, Ms. Holtsclaw drove from the scene straight to 

the Defendant’s mother’s house. She then traveled with the Defendant to a motel, where 

she and the others stayed “off and on” for several days. Ms. Holtsclaw was originally a 

co-defendant in the case and was charged with first degree murder, although she testified 

that she had accepted a guilty plea for facilitating armed robbery in exchange for her 

testimony against the Defendant. 
-2-

Because I believe that there were sufficient facts from which the jury could infer 

that Ms. Holtsclaw was an accomplice, the jury should have been charged accordingly. 

See Ripley v. State, 227 S.W.2d 26, 29 (Tenn. 1950). However, I do not believe that 

plain error review is necessary in this particular case because, at least with respect to Ms. 

Harold, there was no evidence that she was an accomplice, and her testimony 

corroborated Ms. Holtsclaw’s testimony.

_________________________________ 

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                     <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-1996                     
<CASH>                                            0
<SECURITIES>                                 109277
<RECEIVABLES>                              24523582
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           24632859   
<PP&E>                                            0
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             26541829    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        985361
<BONDS>                                           0 
<COMMON>                                        100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  7942283
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               26541829
<SALES>                                     8991230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            8992644
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             258218
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             8734426
<INCOME-TAX>                                3482853
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         5251573
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                5251573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00461

- CV

The State of Texas v. One (1) 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup, VIN #3GCEC13C29G221052, One (1) Smith & Wesson SW40VE.40, Serial #RBK8834 and Bryco Arms Chrome 380 Auto Serial #1222556
On Appeal from th e 105th District Court of Kleberg County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 13

- 082

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 11, 2014
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Biological Control of Weeds

Last Modified: 

Print

A PPQ 526 permit is required for the importation, interstate movement and

environmental release of most invertebrate herbivores that feed upon or infest nonnative weeds (weeds introduced into areas where the co-evolved herbivores do not

occur). 

Permits must be obtained before the importation or interstate movement and must

specify the species to be moved as well as the State where the release or research

will occur. If weed biocontrol agents for release are being obtained from a

commercial or public source, the provider may have such a permit for release in

your state, otherwise you will need to submit a PPQ 526 application.

Apply for a Permit

When applying for a permit to release, you will need to provide:

The scientific name(s) (Genus and species) of each species you wish to receive;

The name and location of the supplier;

The target weed(s);

The identity and source of any plant material that will accompany each species;

Other information that may be needed by APHIS
Redistribution across State lines requires additional permit(s). Movement and receipt

of microbial biocontrol organisms may have additional requirements. If you plan to

import weed biocontrol organisms you will most likely be required to receive the

organisms into an inspected containment facility.

What is weed biocontrol and where do the

biocontrol agents come from?

Classical biological control of weeds is a weed control method where exotic natural

enemies from the places where the exotic weed originated are used to reduce weed

infestations. The practice of weed biological control in the United States began in the

1940s and has resulted in some spectacular successes in the suppression of the

targeted weed.

Today, and since about 1960, there has been a group of experts who advise APHIS

on the decision to release a new non-indigenous weed biological control agent into

the environment.

Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds

Researchers who wish to propose the first time environmental release of a new weed

biological control species will need to become familiar with the requirements and

procedures for submitting such a proposal.

Technical Advisory Group for Biological Control Agents of Weeds Manual (TAGBCAW Manual)

APHIS considers the advice of the TAG-BCAW and other information before deciding

to permit the release of weed biocontrol organisms new to the United States, and

also requires specific environmental compliance and other procedures prior to

permitting.

APHIS Permitting of new Weed Biocontrol Organisms
# CON **12- 15**  **Doc# 3** **028 3**  

# AMU **Atlantic Municipal**  **Utilities**

**October 1,**  **2014 Cecilia**  **Tapia, Superfund**  **Division Director**  **Environmental Protection**  **Agency 901**  **North 5** **lh Street**  **Kansas City,**  **Kansas 66101** 
**RE: I.D. Number**  **IAD039954300 Director**  **Tapia: Representatives**  **of your**  **agency have**  **advised Atlantic**  **Municipal Utilities**  **of its**  **intent to**  **move forward**  **with the**  **designating of** **I.D. Number**  **IAD0399S4300 as**  **a National**  **Priorities List**  **(NPL) site,**  **making it**  **possible to**  **utilize Superfund**  **monies for**  **cleanup costs.**  **Please be**  **advised that**  **Atlantic Municipal**  **Utilities bel** **ieves that**  **this action**  **is in**  **the best**  **interests of** **all concerned**  **and that**  **we support**  **the Environmental**  **Protection Agency's**  **(EPA) decision**  **to move**  **forward with**  **the nomination**  **of the**  **above listed**  **site for the**  **NPL. We**  **understand that**  **neither the**  **City of**  **Atlantic nor**  **Atlantic Municipal Utilities will**  **have any**  **financial ob** **ligation for**  **any costs for**  **the removal**  **or remediation**  **of contamination**  **associated with**  **this site.**  **We would**  **also like to**  **fonnally request**  **the designation**  **of the**  **site be**  **changed from**  **1.D. Number**  **IAD039954300 to**  **the "Former**  **Dry Cleaner**  **Site 0** **• If**  **you have**  **any further**  **questions regarding**  **this matter,**  **please do**  **not hesitate**  **to contact**  **Atlantic Municipal**  **Utilities (AMU)**  **at your**  **earliest opportunity.** 

**..... �**  **/ Respectfully,**  

# -A�·,,�

**Steve Tjepkes,**  **General Manager**  **Cc: Susan**  **Fisher, EPA**  **Cal Lundberg,**  **IDN R**  **Keith Wilken,**  **Region 4**  **IDNR 00** **46 9**  **OC T0** **8' 1** **4 AH**  **8t2 8** 
**Atlantic Municipal Ut/111,es • 15 Werst**  **3 "'**  **Stl'eet • Atlantic, IA 50022 •**  **1ul. (712) 243-1396**  **Fc1.\ i712) 243-2028**
Exhibit 32.2**Certification pursuant to****Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)**I, Edward J. Puisis, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Dayton Superior Corporation (the“Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period endingDecember 31, 2006 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) andThe information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: March 30, 2007              /s/ Edward J. Puisis   Edward J. Puisis   Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          May-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Feb-28-1999
<CASH>                                            33,914
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     48,272
<ALLOWANCES>                                       3,160
<INVENTORY>                                        5,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 129,565
<PP&E>                                           283,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (107,851)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   956,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            100,948
<BONDS>                                        1,458,857
<COMMON>                                             312
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (606,112)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     956,672
<SALES>                                          262,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 262,591
<CGS>                                             50,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    288,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                48,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (56,851)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (10,114)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (46,737)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (40,526)
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (87,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1.90)


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

UBICOMM, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, BULBS.COM 

INCORPORATED, DICK'S SPORTING GOODS INC., 

GNC HOLDINGS INC., EBAY INC., SMARTPAK 

EQUINE LLC, THINKGEEK INC., V. F. 

CORPORATION, ZAPPOS IP, INC., WAL-MART 

STORES, INC., NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC., 

AND CROCS INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1092, -1099, -1100, -1101, -1102, -1103, -1104, -1105, 

-1106, -1217, -1245, -1249

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in Nos. 1:13-cv-00869-RGA, 1:13-cv00872-RGA, 1:13-cv-00874-RGA, 1:13-cv-00876-RGA, 

1:13-cv-01019-RGA, 1:13-cv-01022-RGA, 1:13-cv-01024-

RGA, 1:13-cv-01026-RGA, 1:13-cv-01029-RGA, 1:13-cv01876-RGA, 1:13-cv-00882-RGA, and 1:13-cv-00873-RGA, 

Judge Richard G. Andrews.

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

Case: 14-1092 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 07/31/2014
2 UBICOMM, LLC v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

UBICOMM, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BLUE RIBBON MOTORING, LLC AND WILLIAMSSONOMA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2014-1359

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California in Nos. 3:13-cv-01361-HBGS, 3:13-cv-01362-H-BGS, and 3:13-cv-01363-H-BGS, 

Judge Marilyn L. Huff. 

______________________ 

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the joint motion to withdraw 

the above-captioned appeals, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s19 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 31, 2014

Case: 14-1092 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 07/31/2014
May 21,1999

21683

#### Hokama v. Administrative Director of the Courts

Affirmed
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 42 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                   House Calendar No. 4
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 42

                           [Report No. 114-4]

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
                           funded abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 21, 2015

     Ms. Foxx, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
                           funded abortions.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
funded abortions. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall 
be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority 
Leader or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                                   House Calendar No. 4

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. RES. 42

                           [Report No. 114-4]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7) to prohibit taxpayer 
                           funded abortions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 21, 2015

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 559 

Disapproving of Executive Order 13688 (regarding Federal support for local 

law enforcement equipment acquisition) issued by President Obama on 

January 16, 2015. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

Mr. TROTT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of Executive Order 13688 (regarding Federal 

support for local law enforcement equipment acquisition) 

issued by President Obama on January 16, 2015. 

Whereas the terrorist attack in San Bernardino shows that 

our local authorities are front and center in the fight 

against ISIS and other terror networks; 

Whereas local law enforcement officials have stated the President’s plan to remove these vehicles will ‘‘leave communities at risk’’; 

Whereas if there is an act of terrorism or if there is an active 

shooter in a mall or a school, local law enforcement are 

the first responders; 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 559 IH 

Whereas the President is making it more challenging for 

budget-strapped authorities to respond to a potentially 

deadly attack in their communities; and 

Whereas tracked armored vehicles are used in rescue and response situations and are employed in a responsible manner, only coming out when absolutely necessary: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives does not 

2 favor Executive Order 13688 (regarding Federal support 

3 for local law enforcement equipment acquisition) issued by 

4 President Obama on January 16, 2015. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Edith R. Ploss et al., as Representatives of the Property Owners Affected by List No. 8000 — Storm and Sanitary Sewers Utopia Parkway, Borough of Queens, Petitioners, against Board of Assessors of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

March 13, 1959.

*Leon L. Ploss*for petitioners.

*Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel (Harry E. O’Donnell*and *MiltonH. Harris*of counsel), for respondents.

John F. Scileppi, J.

Application for an order reviewing an assessment levied on petitioners’ property for the construction of a storm sewer.

The sewer was completed on or about August 18, 1952. The assessment was levied on or about December 15, 1958. Petitioners contend that since the assessment was levied more than six years after the completion of the improvement, it is barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Subdivision 3 of section 306 of the New York City Charter provides that assessments shall be made ‘ ‘ if practicable ’ ’ within one year after receipt of the certificate of completion. The very fact that the charter provision includes the words ‘ ‘ if practicable ” implies that the one-year limitation is directory, not mandatory. There appears to be no limitation of time within which an assessment may be levied and, in the absence of such a provision, “ it is not within the power of the courts to introduce and enforce such a limitation.” *(People ex rel. Schick*v. *Marvin,*249 App. Div. 293, 297, affd. 275 N. Y. 587.)

Even with respect to the collection of an assessment, as distinguished from the levying thereof, petitioners’ claim that the six-year statute applies is without merit. The lien of an assessment persists until the assessment has been paid. *(L. K. Land Corp.*v. *Gordon,*1 N Y 2d 465.)

*284Petitioners ’ second point is that there has been some inequality in the assessments levied on the various parcels. The reasons for the differences in the assessments are clearly set forth in the opposing affidavits. Apart from that, however, petitioners did not raise that question before the Board of Revision of Assessments and, in any event, the question cannot be raised Rere. The review permitted by the City Charter and the Administrative Code is limited to a situation where the assessment has been increased by “fraud or substantial error.” Even then, the assessment may not be reduced beyond that part which should have been assessed for the fair value of the improvement. (Administrative Code of City of New York, § 311-6.0.)

Until it is made to appear that an assessment exceeds the fair value of the work, the court has no power to grant any relief. *(Matter of Mead,*74 N. Y. 216.) It is not alleged that the instant assessments exceed the fair value of the work.

The two petitioners herein have purported to sue as representatives of all owners of property on which similar assessments have been levied. Such a class suit may not be maintained. (Administrative Code of City of New York, § 311-5.0; *Wallace*v. *Mayor of the City of N. Y.,*53 App. Div. 187, affd. 165 N. Y. 658.)

The application must be denied and the petition dismissed.

Submit order.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NVAP: Questions, Comments, or

Technical Issues?

Last Modified: 

Print

Submit

Comment 

Please indicate your concern(s):

○ Questions about Content 

○ Problem or Error (Incorrect spelling, text, broken links) 

○ Comments and Suggestions 

Name 

Email 

Questions, Comments, Technical Issues
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002**

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending June 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael T. Prior, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|                       | Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. |
|----------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                       |                             |
| Date: August 10, 2009 | By:                              | /s/ Michael T. Prior |
|                       |                             | Michael T. Prior |
|                       |                             | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----