alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TURNER v. STATE.

No. A-11890.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 27, 1954.

Rehearing Denied March 24, 1954.

Champion, Champion, & Wallace, Ard-more, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q.. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, Judge.

The defendant Alex Turner was charged by an information filed in the District Court of Carter County with the crime of murder; was tried, convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, was sentenced to serve six years in the penitentiary, and has appealed.

No brief has been filed on behalf of the accused and no appearance was made for him at the time the case was assigned for oral argument. In such a situation, this court examines the record for fundamental error and if none appears, the judgment is affirmed.

Wé have carefully examined the record. The accused shot and killed Ernest Powell on July 10, 1949, at a barbecue pit and dancing hall operated by Powell. The shooting was the outgrowth of a controversy between the deceased and one Orlandus Curry over a broken window pane which had occurred in a scuffle between 'Curry and another man. An argument arose between the deceased' and Curry after the deceased had taken Curry’s wdtch to hold until Curry paid for the broken window pane. The-defendant, who was Curry’s friend, took up the argument. One altercation led to another and it finally ended when Turner and Powell pulled their pistols and the defendant shot Powell in the stomach and Powell shot the defendant in the leg. Powell died and defendant lived.

The instructions substantially stated 'the' law of the- case and we have found no fun-dámeiital error. The issues presented a question of fact for the determination of the jury.

The judgment and sentence of the District Court of Carter County is affirmed.

POWELL, P. J., and BRETT, J., concur.

On Petition for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

The above case was affirmed for failure to file a brief. Counsel obtained' permis*302sion from the. court-to file a briéf in support of his petition for rehearing and, because of extraordinary circumstances, the court granted his request for. oral argument.

The brief has been fully considered. Defendant did not testify and no excuse was made for his failure to so testify. Under any reasonable view of the facts, it appeared there was a mutual combat in which both defendant and deceased voluntarily entered while each was armed with a pistol. Both parties were shot, but Powell died.

. We see no legal basis that would justify the court in reversing the conviction or modifying the' punishment of six years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The petition for rehearing is denied, and the mandate is ordered issued forthwith.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 09/04 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Sep 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.50 N 76.81 WMeters AGL
# C_2009006EN.01003103.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/31

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — Sacem v Commission

(Case T-422/08 R)

(Interim measures - Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of author's rights - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)

(2009/C 6/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs de musique (Sacem) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2008) final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                     POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                         FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
(Figures and amounts expressed in thousands, except per share and per option amounts)                            

                                                                1997           1996          1995         1994         1993
                                                                ----           ----          ----         ----         ----

<S>                                                         <C>            <C>            <C>          <C>           <C>    
A      Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP                $ 297,138      $ 209,036      $159,486     $ 91,219      $44,697
B      Items adjusting net income                             (11,382)        (7,216)       18,598       (4,539)       5,229
C      Net income, US GAAP (A + B)                          $ 285,756      $ 201,820      $178,084     $ 86,680      $49,926

D      Weighted average number of shares outstanding           52,275         45,537        43,352       42,872       39,793

E      Options outstanding to purchase equivalent shares        2,461          1,845         1,396        1,049          841

F      Average exercise price per option                    $   68.11      $   52.90      $  34.74     $  18.00      $ 16.90

G      Average market price per share                       $   82.60      $   70.33      $  52.44     $  29.81      $ 22.94

H      Period end market price per share                    $   83.00      $   85.00      $  70.88     $  34.00      $ 25.63

I      Rate of return available on option proceeds                  5%             5%            5%           5%           5%


Canadian GAAP
       Basic earnings per share (A/D)                       $    5.68      $    4.59      $   3.68     $   2.13      $  1.12

       Fully diluted earnings per share
J        Imputed earnings on option proceeds (E*F*I)        $   8,381      $   4,880      $  2,425     $    944      $   711

       Fully diluted earnings per share (A+J)/(D+E)         $    5.58      $    4.51      $   3.62     $   2.10      $  1.12


United States GAAP
       Basic earnings per share (C/D)                       $    5.47      $    4.43      $   4.11     $   2.02      $  1.25

       Fully diluted earnings per share
K        Net additional shares issuable (E-(E*F/G))               432            457           471          416          221

         Fully diluted earnings per share (C/(D+K))         $    5.42      $    4.39      $   4.06     $   2.00      $  1.25
</TABLE>
!STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

HALEY BARBOUR 

GOVERNOR 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QU. 

TRUDY D. FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

July 28,2010 

Mr. A. Stanley Meiburg 

Acting Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental 

Protection Agency - Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909 

Re: Implementation of the EPA Tailoring Rule . 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

In response to the EPA's request for information from the states in implementing the 

greenhouse gas (GHG) tailoring rule, Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

staff has analyzed state law and current ~is'sissi~~i Commission on Environmental Quality 

(Commission) regulations to determine whether the state can implement the GHG tailoring rule. 

The state can implement the GHG tailoring rule. 

Mississippi's law provides the Commission with statutory authority under Miss. Code 

Ann. $9 49-17-1, et seq. to administer and regulate federal pollution control legislation and 

programs, including the Title V and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting 

programs. This authority gives the Commission the ability to implement the EPA's PSD and Title 

V GHG Tailoring Rule as well. The current regulations for the state PSD program (APC-S-5) are 

adopted by reference up to the June 15, 2007 Code of Federal Regulations. The Title V state 

regulations (APC-S-6) are not adopted by reference but are substantially similar, with the 

exception of the definitions promulgated by the new rule. These regulations (APC-S-5 and APCS-6) must be amended in accordance with Miss. Code Ann. $8 49-17-25 and 25-43-3.101, et seq. 

in order for MDEQ to be able to implement the GHG tailoring rule. 

The regulatory amendment process to amend the regulations concerning the PSD and 

Title V programs should be completed by January 2, 2011, pending public interest and the 

potential controversy related to the EPA's PSD and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule. 

Trudy $ Fisher 

Executive Director
EXHIBIT 31.1
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert Hipple, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of iWorld Projects & Systems,
Inc.;
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,  changes in net assets,  and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant's  other
certifying  officers 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)) for the registrant 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 registrant,  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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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; and

      c)  disclosed  in this  report  any  change in the  registrant's  internal
      control over  financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's
      most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the
      case of an annual report) that has materially  affected,  or is reasonably
      likely to  materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal  control  over
      financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant'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 registrant's  ability to record,
      process, summarize, and report financial information; and

      b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.


Date: May 13, 2005

/s/ Robert Hipple
-----------------


Robert Hipple, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2013313EN.01001501.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-73/08) (1)

1

(Financial assistance paid in the context of the Daphne II programme - Determination of the amount of the final grant - Debit note - Measure open to challenge - Obligation to state reasons - Fair trial - Errors of assessment)

2013/C 313/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented: initially by B. Henning, then U. Claus and M. Uhmann, and finally by C. Otto, S. Reichmann and L.-J. Schmidt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by S. Grünheid and B. Simon, then S. Grünheid and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in the debit note of 26 November 2007, in which it requested the applicant to repay the sum of EUR 23 228,07 which the Commission paid to the applicant pursuant to the Daphne Grant Agreement (JLS/DAP/2004-1/080/YC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung eV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 13.2

906 CERTIFICATION

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ye Guohua, the Chief Financial 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.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: April 30, 2012



By:

/s/ Ye Guohua


Name:

Ye GuohuaTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
# READY Appalachia - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Bettina Jones Program Analyst.The post Bettina Jones appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report, of Medical Connections
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the period ended June 30,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:

          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 results of
               operation of the Company.

          3.   A signed original of this written statement required by Section
               906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
               Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
               or its staff upon request.



Date: August 14, 2007

                                                    By: /s/ BRIAN QUILLEN
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Brian Quillen
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 113 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. DeLAURO:
       H.R. 6222.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3 and 18 of the United States 
     Constitution.
```
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ZBB Energy Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Robert J. Parry, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, to my knowledge, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ZBB Energy Corporation and will be retained by ZBB Energy
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





/s/  Robert J.
    ParryRobert
      J. Parry(Principal
      Executive Officer)





February
12, 2009
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: Garnett, Kim Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 11:45 AM
To: Ogulei, David Subject: FW: AWMA - CES



### David,

John Cooper will not be at AWMA, but his Director of Sales/Marketing will be. Below is her email response to me in case you would like to discuss anything with her.

Have a great weekend.

Kim

From: Andrea Geiger [mailto:andreag@cooperenvironmental. com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:39 PM
To: Garnett, Kim
Cc: 'John Cooper' Subject: AWMA - CES



### Hello Kim,

John forwarded your email to me, and although he wi ll not be attending AWMA next week, I will be there . I will be happy to meet David; however, I will only b e attending on Thursday the 27 th 

### . I will be presenting on the Xact’s ETV study results at 4 pm that day (the enti re session is entitled “Measurement Techniques and Emission Estimates of Airborne Pollutants”, startin g at 4 PM in room Columbus KL). Aside from that, I don’t have any specific plans for the remainder of the da y beyond catching a few presentations and walking a round
the exhibit hall. Please let me know David’s contac t information and I would be happy to find some tim e to talk with him. If there is anything specific he might li ke to see, report- or specification- wise, please let me know and I’ll bring some materials along with me.

Best Regards, Andrea Geiger Director of Sales and Marketing/Environmental Scien tist Cooper Environmental Services, LLC 10180 SW Nimbus Ave, Suite J6 Portland, OR 97223 503-670-8127, ext 0 andreag@cooperenvironmental.com www.cooperenvironmental.com Innovation in Monitoring

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail and any attachm ents may contain confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not th e intended recipient, any distribution, copying, or use of this e-mail or its attachments is prohibited. If you received this message in err or, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this message and any copies. Thank you.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 118 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             RESPA HOME WARRANTY CLARIFICATION ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. JOE BACA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wesnesday, August 1, 2012

  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2446, the RESPA Home 
Warranty Clarification Act.
  This bill clarifies that the sale of home warranties cannot be 
considered a settlement service, and therefore cannot be governed under 
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA.
  Many individuals buying a home want to avoid the financial risk of 
having to pay for major repairs on major systems and appliances.
  To reduce that risk and to get the peace of mind that comes with 
knowing they can help guard against the cost of significant repairs, 
home buyers often purchase a home warranty.
  Many individuals selling a home find that providing a home warranty 
at their own cost can help facilitate a quicker sale at a higher price 
by reducing the risk of the unknown for potential buyers.
  It is important to note that the purchase of the product is 
completely optional, and is not made mandatory by any financial 
institution or government sponsored enterprise during the home-buying 
process.
  Recently, however, HUD erroneously issued an interpretive rule 
blocking real estate agents from receiving a modest fee when they 
recommend the product to their client upon the purchase of their new 
home.
  As such, if this rule is allowed to stand, realtors would have no 
incentive to inform their clients about this product.
  Consequently, first-time homebuyers, or low- and moderate income-
families may not be made aware of this option, instead being forced to 
pay full price for the replacement of their home's most expensive 
appliances.
  At a time when our economy is still struggling, we need to ensure 
that hard working American families are still allowed to gain access to 
financial products that they depend on.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2446.

                          ____________________
```