alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### D. FRANCE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 24, 1959.

*869Isaac Turner, Hyden, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., William L. Brooks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

The appellant, D. France, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for the killing of Harold Gene Brown and sentenced to twenty-one years’ imprisonment.

The appellant and two companions had been drinking moonshine whiskey and beer and riding around over the country on Sunday afternoon, September 14, 1958. They came upon the deceased and a larger group of young men, who likewise were indulging in a drinking party, in White Branch Hollow in the Clay County mountains. The conditions were well conducive to clash and conflict. Some of these boys were appropriately caparisoned with artillery, prepared for any eventuality. The appellant had a shotgun and a pistol in his arsenal.

The testimony of numerous witnesses does not present a clear and definite scene of the preceding events and the immediate encounter. But disregarding some variations in detail, there is a clear picture of the appellant and his “buddies” driving up to the other group where a fight was going on between Bill Abner and Luther Allen, both of whom were drunk.

The Commonwealth’s evidence is that as the deceased, Brown, drunk and unarmed, approached the appellant, France, also “plumb” drunk, the latter fired his shotgun into Brown’s chest, and he presently died. Another version is that Brown, the deceased, was only standing by watching the fight between Abner and Allen; that Brown said to France, who had his shotgun pointed at others in the crowd, “You wouldn’t shoot a man, would you?,” and France turned the gun on Brown and shot him.

The defendant denied the essential evidence of his guilt. His version is that when he saw Abner and Allen fighting, he said to Abner, “Don’t fight the boy, he.’s drunk,” and told them to stop fighting. Further, “I got out of the car and them boys come toward me, and he had his hand in his pocket and said, ‘I’ll kill you, you G — ■ d— son of a bitch.’ Junior handed the gun out the car to me and said, ‘Shoot him.’ ” He further testified that Brown, with an oath, said, “I aim to kill you.” As he approached, the defendant shot.

There is no merit in the appellant’s contention that he was and is entitled to a new trial because the verdict was flagrantly against the evidence. The jury reasonably concluded that the defendant had killed the man in sudden heat of passion.

The appellant argues that the instruction on murder was erroneous because it omitted the element of malice aforethought. The record does not bear out the basis of the argument. The instruction, which was in the usual form of a combined murder and manslaughter instruction, contained the condition of malice. In any event, since the accused was not convicted of murder, he would be in no position to claim the benefit of such an error, if there were one.

The evidence contains no basis whatever for an instruction upon the right to kill in defense of Luther Allen, the defendant’s cousin.

The judgment is affirmed.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460
Section 4 Submission This is an original submission: This is an amendment: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that (1) all information entered on this form is complete and accurate; and (2) any confidentiality claims are true and correct as to that information for which they have been asserted. Any knowing and willful misinterpretation is subject to criminal penalty pursuant to 18 USC 1001. Signature: Official Title: Director, Regulatory Affairs Contact Person: Kim A. Boudreaux Email Address: kim.boudreaux@albemarle.com Date Signed: 08/02/2014 PART 1 Contact Information Submission Information Submission Type:

TestRules Form Alias: TestRules-20140802-17:08:44 EDT Federal Register Notice: 76 FR 1067 Date Submitted: 08/02/2014 Submitter Information Company Name:

ALBEMARLE CORPORATION Address: 451 FLORIDA STREET BATON ROUGE, LA, 70801-1765 United States Contact Person: Kim A. Boudreaux Phone Number: 2253887776 Email Address: kim.boudreaux@albemarle.com Technical Contact Information CBI

Yes: No: Company Name: Albemarle Corporation Address: 451 Florida Street Baton Rouge, LA, 70801 United States Contact Person: Ms Kim A. Boudreaux Phone Number: 2253887776 Email Address: kim.boudreaux@albemarle.com PART 2 Letter Of IntentSEC4 Submission Page 2

Chemical Identification CASRN:

68479-98-1 CBI Yes: No:
Chemical Name:Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methylChemical Test Name: F1 Sponsoring Firms CBI

Yes: No: Company Name: Albemarle Corporation Address: 451 Florida Street Baton Rouge, LA, 70801 United States Phone Number: 2253887776 CBI Yes: No: Company Name: Lonza Inc. Address: 90 Boroline Road Allendale, NJ, 07401 United States Phone Number: 2013169365 Additional Information Document Type:

Submission of Equivalence Data CBI Yes: No:
File Name: 2014-07-29 DEDTA dev. tox summary.docx Attachment Date: 08/02/2014

Sanitized Document Upload: N/A Document Type: Submission of Equivalence Data CBI Yes: No:
File Name: V20193 Final report (250714) signed.zip Attachment Date: 08/02/2014

Sanitized Document Upload: N/A Document Type: Submission of Equivalence Data CBI Yes: No:
File Name: Cover Letter.pdf Attachment Date: 08/02/2014SEC4 Submission Page 3

Sanitized Document Upload: N/A Chemicals Paperwork Reduction Act:The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) (44 U.S.C. 3501) provides that, when practicable, Federal organizations use electronic forms, electronic filings, and electronic signatures to conduct official business with the public. EPA's Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Regulation (CROMERR) (40 CFR part 3), published in the Federal Register on October 13, 2005 (70 FR 59848) (FRL-7977-1)(Ref. 2), provides that any requirement in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to submit a report directly to EPA can be satisfied with an electronic submission that meets certain conditions once the Agency published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that EPA is prepared to receive certain documents in electronic form. For more information about CROMERR, go tohttp://www.epa.gov/cromerr/

.
Exhibit 31.1 Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. & Subsidiaries Certification Of Chief Executive Officer PURSUANT TO RULE 13a  14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Dr. Shelby Brewer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Commodore Applied Technologies, 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 periods presented in this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my 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; c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the 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 officer 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 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 controls 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: April 17, 2007 /s/ Shelby T. Brewer Dr. Shelby T. Brewer Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### Lloyd JARBOE, Appellant, v. Edward A. YOPP et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 14, 1955.

Robert B. Reed, Paducah, for appellant.

Thomas W. Threlkeld, Paducah, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the McCracken Circuit Court, Holland G. Bryan, Judg'e, denying appellant title to a vacant lot of one-half acre. Title to same was adjudged to be in appellees, with the exception of an outdoor toilet and that part of the lot it occupies, 5.1 feet wide and 5.9 feet deep, which appellant held adversely for more than fifteen years, and title to this toilet and the land on which it stood was adjudged to be in appellant.

The record shows this vacant lot located on the outskirts of Paducah to be worth about $370. It was unfenced and adjoins property owned by appellant’s wife. Appellant’s evidence of adverse possession, which consisted of stringing clothes lines on the lot and at times keeping a pig pen, dog house, junk pile and sign boards thereon, and at times running chickens on the lot, staking a cow out to graze, using it as a playground for children and raising a garden thereon, was held by the trial judge not to be sufficient to put appellees on notice that appellant was holding the lot in actual, open, notorious, hostile and continuous adverse possession, with the exception of the small plot 5.1 feet by 5.9 feet occupied by his outdoor toilet.

Appellees’ evidence was to the effect that appellant never held the lot adversely to them with the exception of the small plot occupied by the toilet.

The judgment is amply supported by the evidence. Ely v. Fuson, 297 Ky. 325, 180 S.W.2d 90, and the many authorities there cited. The motion for appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1277 

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants for publicprivate partnerships that finance equipment and infrastructure to improve the public safety of persons who are residents of rural areas 

of the United States near the border with Mexico by enhancing access 

to mobile communications, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2011 

Mr. POE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make 

grants for public-private partnerships that finance equipment and infrastructure to improve the public safety 

of persons who are residents of rural areas of the United 

States near the border with Mexico by enhancing access 

to mobile communications, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1277 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Southern Borderlands 

3 Public Safety Communications Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PURPOSE. 

5 The purpose of this Act is to improve the public safe6 ty of persons living in rural areas of the United States 

7 near the border with Mexico by enhancing mobile commu8 nications capabilities. 

9 SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland Secu11 rity may make competitive grants for public-private part12 nerships that finance equipment and infrastructure to im13 prove the public safety of persons who are residents of 

14 rural areas of the United States near the border with Mex15 ico, by enhancing access to mobile communications for 

16 such persons who do not currently have access to reliable 

17 mobile communications networks. 

18 (b) FOCUS AREAS.—In making grants under this sec19 tion, the Secretary shall focus on projects that improve 

20 mobile communications in areas impacted by the illegal 

21 smuggling and trafficking of people and drugs from Mex22 ico into the United States. 

23 (c) ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.—Persons eligible for 

24 grants under this section include States, counties, munici25 palities, organizations representing agricultural producers 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1277 IH

1 and other rural Americans, and telecommunications pro2 viders. 

3 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For 

4 grants under this section there is authorized to be appro5 priated to the Secretary $10,000,000 for the 3-fiscal-year 

6 period following the date of enactment of this Act. 

7 (e) FUNDING OFFSET.—To offset amounts appro8 priated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in 

9 subsection (d), the International Forestry Cooperation Act 

10 of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.) is repealed. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.21  




  



	 	 	May 8, 2003







John A. Shea

1016 Hilltop Road

Leesport PA 19533 


Dear
John: 


        With
reference to your employment agreement (the "Employment Agreement") with EnerSys, Inc. (the  "Company"), dated November 9, 2000, pursuant
to which you are currently employed as Executive Vice President North America Motive Power Business
of the Company, we confirm that effective as of April 1, 2003, your salary provided for in Section 3 of the Employment Agreement has been increased to $311,000. 



        Except
as expressly set forth in the letter, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 



	 	 	ENERSYS INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/  JOHN D. CRAIG      
 John D. Craig

Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60849

Summary Calendar

 

JOSE JAVIER FUENTES-GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A76-836-429

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Javier Fuentes-Gonzalez petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration

Judge’s decision to deny his application for cancellation of

removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He argues that

this court has jurisdiction to review the denial of his application

for cancellation of removal and that “the BIA failed to properly

consider facts bearing on [his] individual circumstances and failed

to state its reasons for its conclusory and generic decision.” 
2

We have previously approved of the BIA’s authority to affirm

the Immigration Judge’s decision without giving additional reasons.

See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). When,

as in this case, the BIA affirms without opinion, this court has

jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s determination that

the petitioner did not amass 10 years of continuous physical

presence in the United States as required for cancellation of

removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)(A). Mireles-Valdez v.

Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2003). The Immigration

Judge determined that Fuentes’ testimony regarding when he arrived

in the United States was not credible. We will not disturb this

credibility determination. See Garcia-Melendez v. Ashcroft,

351 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir. 2003). There was substantial evidence

to support the Immigration Judge’s determination that Fuentes did

not amass the 10 years of continuous physical presence in the

United States as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)(A). 

We do not have jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s

determination that Fuentes’ children would not suffer an

“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if they were deported

to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); 8 U.S.C.

1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 592 (5th Cir.

2003). Accordingly, Fuentes’ petition for review is DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a) OR 15D-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Dean A. Wiltse, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Greenfield
Online, Inc. (the registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 officer(s) 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
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. /s/ Dean A. WiltseDean A. WiltsePresident and Chief Executive Officer Date: November 4, 2004
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We    consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form    S-8) pertaining to the NVE Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan (as amended    by the shareholders on July 19, 2001) and the NVE Corporation 2001 Employee    Stock Purchase Plan of our reports dated May 14, 2008, with respect to the    financial statements of NVE Corporation and the effectiveness of internal    control over financial reporting of NVE Corporation, included in the Annual    Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2008.

 

 
|  /s/          ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|------------------------------------------|
|                                     |
| Minneapolis,          Minnesota          |
| May          19, 2008                    |
Exhibit 32.1



PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Szabo, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |  |  |                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|                    |  | 
|Date: July 20, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas A. Szabo                 
|                    |  |  |  | Thomas A. Szabo                     
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman



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.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20300 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROSMON ANDRE LIVING, also known as Gator Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-221-ALL
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Rosmon Andre Living presents arguments that he concedes are f oreclosed by U nited States
v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 5, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk