alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eli HAMILTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29164.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 16, 1957.

J. W. Reid, Abilene, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area, with a prior conviction of an offense of like character alleged for enhancement; the punishment, fifteen days in jail.

Our prior opinion herein is withdrawn.

 An examination of the complaint shows that it charges the primary offense to have occurred on May 13, 1956, while the jurat shows that the affiant swore to the same on April 14, 1956, which was one month before the alleged date of the offense shown therein. An information based upon a void complaint is itself void. Bradshaw v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 441, 243 S.W.2d 586.

Because of the fatal defect in the complaint, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 24.1



                                   POWER OF ATTORNEY


The undersigned director and/or officer of Karrington Health, Inc. (the
"Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint Richard R. Slager and Alan B.
Satterwhite, or either of them, my true and lawful attorneys and agents, each
with full power of substitution, to do any and all acts and things in my name
and on my behalf in my capacity as a director of the Company and to execute
any and all instruments for me and in my name in the capacity indicated
above, which said attorneys or agents, or either of them, may deem necessary
or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and any rules, regulations and requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder, in connection with the filing
requirements of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1996 (the "1996 Form 10-K"), including specifically but
without limitation, power and authority to sign for me in my name, in the
capacity indicated above, the 1996 Form 10-K and any and all amendments to
such 1996 Form 10-K; and I do hereby ratify and confirm all that the said
attorneys and agents, or their substitute or substitutes, or either of them,
shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.




                                        /S/ RICHARD R. SLAGER
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Richard R. Slager
                                        Chairman of the Board, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### Percy MAYFIELD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 36903.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1964.

On Motion to Re-Instate Appeal Oct. 7, 1964.

*941Percy Foreman, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, James C. Brough and David Ball, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The offense is unlawful possession of a dangerous *drug;*the punishment, sixty days in jail.

The recognizance appearing in the record is shown to have been entered into by the appellant and only one surety. Art. 831, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., which prescribes the form of a misdemeanor recognizance on appeal, provides that the recognizance be entered into by the defendant and two sureties.

The recognizance, not being in substantial compliance with the statute, is in* sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court. Price v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 312, 299 S.W.2d 141; Wilkins v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 36, 91 S.W.2d 354.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.

ON MOTION TO RE-INSTATE THE APPEAL

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

Proper appeal bond having been given and approved, the appeal is re-instated.

Trial was before the court on a plea of not guilty.

The evidence shows that police officers, having obtained a search warrant, went to appellant’s room in the Sands Motel to execute the warrant..

The appellant drove up soon after the officers arrived and some of the officers went to the car, handed him the search warrant and searched the automobile.

In the glove compartment the officers found fourteen capsules which were shown by the evidence to contain barbiturates.

The fruits of the search were admitted in evidence over the objection that the search was illegal because (1) the affidavit supporting the search warrant was legally insufficient, and (2) the search warrant did not authorize search of the car.

The affidavit for the search warrant is in all material respects the same as that held sufficient by this Court to show probable cause in Giacona v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 335 S.W.2d 837; Etchieson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 372 S.W.2d 690, and Aguillar v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 629, 362 S.W.2d 111.

This Court must yield, however, to the majority holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Aguilar v. Texas, *942378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, decided June 15, 1964, and in Etchieson v. Texas, 378 U.S. 589, 84 S.Ct. 1932, 12 L.Ed.2d 1041, decided June 22, 1964.

These decisions of the Supreme Court control the disposition of this appeal and require reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
#### Roy C. LYNN, Appellant, v. A. C. ALLEN et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 24, 1957.

Shumate & Shumate, Irvine, for appellant.

John W. Walker, Irvine, Robert H. Mea-sle, Lexington, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is prosecuted on motion for an appeal under KRS 21.080. The case involves automobile damage claims of the respective parties arising out of a collision when appellant’s automobile, operated by his wife, proceeded onto Kentucky 52 from an intersecting highway. The jury denied recovery on appellees’ counterclaim, and the court directed a verdict for the appellees on the appellant’s (plaintiff’s) claim against them.

We have examined the record', discussed the case, and find no error prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000


<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 FEB-26-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      FEB-26-2000
<CASH>                                                  9,682
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                           116,357
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      132,262
<PP&E>                                                259,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                         97,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        300,314
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  44,450
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  798
<OTHER-SE>                                            252,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          300,314
<SALES>                                               341,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      341,570
<CGS>                                                 212,845
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         212,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         3,645
<INCOME-TAX>                                            1,421
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     2,224
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            2,224
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.14



</TABLE>
NOTE:

DATE: January 20, 2010

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

FROM: Jeff Herzog, Mechanical Engineer, U.S. EPA

SUBJECT: Phone Conversations with Conoco Phillips Regarding EPA’s Registration 

Requirements for Manufactures of E85 and on the Composition of the 

Gasoline Blendstocks Used to Manufacture E85

July 30, 2009 Conference Call

Participants:

Marla Benechek, Conoco Phillips

Jeff Herzog, EPA

Marla Benechek from Conoco Phillips called me to discuss the existing EPA 

requirements for the gasoline used with denatured ethanol to blend E85 at terminals. We 

also discussed EPA requirements related to whether a terminal operator who blends 

butane during the manufacture of E85 would be considered as a refiner. Ms. Benechek 

related that the composition of the gasoline used to blend E85 at terminals should not be 

required to comply with the RFG and anti-dumping requirements that are applicable 

where the terminal is located. She also related that terminal operators who blend butane 

during the manufacture of E85 should not be considered as refiners by EPA. Ms 

Benechek related that the rationale for Conoco Phillips position on these issues will be 

detailed in their formal written comments on the RFS2 proposal. 

August 4, 2009 Conference Call

Participants:

Marla Benechek, Conoco Phillips

Jeff Kodish, EPA

Jeff Herzog, EPA

We discussed EPA’s determination that the gasoline portion of E85 must comply with the 

applicable requirements for reformulated or conventional gasoline. Ms. Benechek related 

that she did not necessarily agree that EPA has sufficient grounds to require that the 

gasoline used in blending E85 must be EPA certified gasoline. 
Ms Benechek related that it will likely continue to be necessary to blend butanes and 

pentanes during the manufacture of E85 in order to meet minimum ASTM volatility

specifications. She related that that there are currently widespread difficulties in 

manufacturing E85 to meet minimum ASTM volatility specifications. ASTM will likely

raise the limit on the amount of hydrocarbons that can be used in manufacturing E85 to 

facilitate meeting ASTM volatility specifications. This is likely to resolve much of the 

difficulty in meeting minimum ASTM volatility specifications. However, even if these 

changes to the ASTM E85 specification are adopted, it will likely continue to be 

necessary to blend in high vapor pressure hydrocarbons (such as butane and pentane) into 

E85 to meet minimum volatility specifications under some circumstances. She related 

that requiring the high volatility blendstocks to be considered part of the gasoline used to 

manufacture E85 and to require that this mixture meet EPA gasoline certification 

specifications would represent an obstacle to the manufacture of E85 in circumstances 

where high-volatility blendstocks are needed to meet minimum E85 volatility

specifications.
----

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 Magic Media Networks, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon Scott Venters, President, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: September 20, 2004

| /s/ Gordon Scott Venters                                                                                                                                                                    |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| Gordon Scott Venters, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
July 6, 2015

Mr. Kevin Stewart

Mining Engineer

Holliday Sand & Gravel Company

9660 Legler Road

Lenexa, KS 66219

Dear Mr. Stewart:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23, 45.29, 61.113(a) and (b), 91.119(c), 91.121(a), 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a) and (b), and 

Subpart E (91.401–91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains 

why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 24, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Holliday Sand & Gravel 

Company into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1435), but we are unable to process your 

request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

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

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. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not 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,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9858-9859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02774]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; URGenT: Translational Efforts to 
Advance Gene-based Therapies for Ultra-Rare Neurological and 
Neuromuscular Disorders.
    Date: February 27, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

[[Page 9859]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Mirela Milescu, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NINDS/NIH, HHS NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 
20852, 301-496-5720, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e43475c4b424f004347424b5d4d5b6e40474600494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8a5a1baada4a9e6a5a1a4adbbabbd88a6a1a0e6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: February 6, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02774 Filed 2-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,922
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,138
<PP&E>                                          97,428
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 338,956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          169,312
<BONDS>                                         38,078
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,242
<COMMON>                                           219
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   338,956
<SALES>                                        202,386
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,386
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                20,656
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,167
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,239)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                      (1,938)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (33,177)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.62)
        

</TABLE>
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  Entertainment  Is Us, Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Noriyuki Kanayama, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 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 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 Entertainment Is Us, Inc, Inc. and will be retained by Entertainment
Is Us, Inc, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

June 22, 2006



/s/ Noriyuki Kanayama
----------------------
Noriyuki Kanayama
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          79,083
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  241,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,567
<INVENTORY>                                    818,935
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,259,263
<PP&E>                                         888,317
<DEPRECIATION>                               (816,231)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,618,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          954,705
<BONDS>                                        580,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,000
<COMMON>                                       113,720
<OTHER-SE>                                     956,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,618,552
<SALES>                                      2,041,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,041,464
<CGS>                                        1,603,454
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,603,454
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,356,557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,567
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              66,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,976,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,918,547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  7,974
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,968,739)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.67)
        


</TABLE>