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

No. 28925.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 3, 1957.

*921Carl E. F. Dally, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty, Thomas D. White and Benjamin Woodall, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, death.

In view of our disposition of this case, a recitation of the facts will not be deemed necessary other than to observe that the sole defense was that of insanity.

The appellant offered into evidence his Navy service record authenticated as being accurate by the Chief of Naval Personnel and the Acting Judge Advocate General for the Secretary of the Navy, which contained, among other things, a showing that as early as 1948 the appellant was treated at the United States Naval Hospital in San Diego, California, following a suicidal attempt, and “the diagnosis of Paranoid State was established on 9. July 1948.” The service record further reflects that the appellant was discharged from the Navy shortly thereafter as “unfit for service” upon recommendation of the Medical Board.

We have concluded that the authentication set forth above was sufficient to make the record admissible under Section 2 of Article 3731a, V.A.C.S.

Clearly, the evidence recited was admissible on the issue of insanity.

Upon another trial, the arresting officer should not be permitted to testify as to his conversation with the appellant fifteen minutes after the appellant’s arrest, which was not shown to be res gestae, and the Senior Psychiatrist from the Veterans’ Administration Hospital, where the appellant had been a mental patient, should be permitted to testify fully from the appellant’s record in such institution when the same has been properly identified.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 23





                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Experts" in the Registration Statement (Form S-8), pertaining to
the Long-Term Stock Savings Plan of Phillips Petroleum Company
and to the incorporation by reference therein and in the related
prospectus of our reports (1) dated February 23, 1998, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Phillips Petroleum Company included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997, as amended, and
(2) dated June 24, 1998, with respect to the financial statements
and schedules of the Long-Term Stock Savings Plan of Phillips
Petroleum Company included in the Plan's Annual Report
(Form 11-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997, as filed as
Exhibit 99(b) to Phillips Petroleum Company's Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997, as amended,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


                               /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                   -----------------
                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
November 9, 1998


<PAGE>
InThe Matter Of: NORTHEASTERN 

### SERVED: April 12, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

DocketNo. FAA-2015-0206 AVIA TION CORPORATION 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) Case No. 201lEAl10045 Respondent 

### ORDERDISMISSING PROCEEDING
. On March 23, 2016, an Order Setting Filing Deadline was**filed~** Among otherthings, this Order set an April 8, 2016 deadline for the parties to file settlement documents, or inthe alternative, to file a Status Report. OnMarch 25, 2016, a Notice ofHearing Location was filed, which providedthe full address and other details ofthe hearing location. OnApril 8, 2016, the FAA contactedthe Office ofHearings ("OH") attorney staffby telephone to request an extension oftime to file settlement documents. Laterthat same day, the

· OH attorney staffnotified the parties by e-mail that the deadline to file settlement documents or a

Status Report was extended to April 14, 2016. OnApril 12, 2016, the FAA filed the Agency's Withdrawal ofComplaint, stating "pursuantto a settlement agreement, [the FAA] withdraws its Complaint inthis matter." After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and beingfully advised;

### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

### 1. The Hearing set for June 14- 16, 2016, at the Jacob K Javits Federal Building inNew York, New York, is cancelled. 2. Pursuantto 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the FAA has withdrawn its Complaint, and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice.

Attachment: Service List

Page 2of2DocketNo. FAA-2015-0206 (Civil Penalty Action) 

### SERVICE LIST

- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY
. Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl0001

Ms. Camille J. Castillo 

### Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Enforcement Division, Northeast Team 1 Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434 TEL: 718-553-3278 FAX: 718-995-5699 Mr. Edward J. Longosz, II Ms. Evelyn D. Sahr 

### Respondent's Counsel ONE COPY

Eckert, Seamans, Cherin, & Mellot, LLC 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 TEL: 202-659-6619 

### I 202-659-6622 FAX: 202-659-6699 Judge J.E. Sullivan 

### U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Room El 1-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC--430.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2024-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2308]


Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Rock County, Minnesota 
and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing 
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, 
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood 
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone 
designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as 
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps 
and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports 
for Rock County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective February 23, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
2308, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal 
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43332237312a20286d302220212a212a370325262e226d272b306d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0b0a1b4b2a9a3abeeb3a1a3a2a9a2a9b480a6a5ada1eea4a8b3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering 
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f5f4e5b5d464c44015c4e4c4d464d465b6f494a424e014b475c01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="90e0f1e4e2f9f3fbbee3f1f3f2f9f2f9e4d0f6f5fdf1bef4f8e3bef7ffe6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 23, 2023, FEMA published a 
proposed notice at 88 FR 11457, proposing flood hazard determinations 
for Rock County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing 
the proposed notice.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

Nicholas A. Shufro,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2024-03725 Filed 2-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Carl I. BAILEY, Appellant, v. Harriett BAILEY, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 26, 1956.

. Thomas Burchett, Ashland-, for appellant.

B. S. Wilson, Jr., Ashland, for appellee.

MOREMEN, Judge.

-On November 4,-1949, the circuit court entered a judgment which granted to the *943appellant, Carl Bailey, a divorce from the appellee, Harriett Bailey. Appellee was awarded custody of the two infant children and alimony and maintenance for herself and children in the sum of $130 per month. No appeal was taken from this judgment.

On August 5, 1955, the court entered a judgment wherein it was decided that appellant was indebted to the appellee in the sum of. $3,565 for alimony and maintenance up to and including June 30, 1955. It .was further adjudicated that appellant’s financial condition was such that he was unable to. purge himself of contempt and the mo-, tion looking to that purpose was indefinitely continued. The alimony and maintenance allowance was reduced from $130 per month to the sum of $15 per week. It is from this judgment that appellant prose; cutes this. appeal although the argument for reversal made by the appellant is directed at the first judgment.

It is contended that the court erred in the original judgment in allowing alimony to appellee when the judgment of divorce was granted to appellant and since the court retains jurisdiction over alimony, and maintenance, it should have set aside the 1949 judgment and allowed credit for all the alimony paid upon maintenance for the children. In short, this is an attempt to appeal a judgment, many years after the time for filing appeal has elapsed and is-untenable.

Appellant also presupposes that the court did not have the right to grant alimony to the wife in any case where the divorce is granted to the husband. In Coleman v. Coleman, Ky., 269 S.W.2d 730, it was pointed out that where the wife has not been guilty of moral delinquency and the husband has not been entirely free from fault, the wife may be entitled to alimony even though the husband has been granted a divorce.

We' believe the judgment of the trial court is correct in all particulars. Although it is subject to modification at á latér date, it is binding' and final until modified. Installments of alimony and maintenance become vested when they become due and the court has no power to. modify the decree as to them. Whitby v. Whitby, 306 Ky. 355, 208 S.W.2d 68.

Judgment affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) In connection with the Annual Report of McRae Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, D. Gary McRae, President and CEO 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 result of
operations of the Company. /s/ D. Gary McRae  
 49
#### Lloyd MILLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29373.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 18, 1957.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*890MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is misdemeanor theft; the punishment, one year in jail and a fine of $100.

No statement of facts or formal bills of exception accompanies the record.

In view of the absence of a statement of facts, we are unable to pass upon the objections to the court’s charge contained in the transcript. Williams v. State, Tex.Crim. App., 297 S.W.2d 169.

All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WARREN THOMAS, SR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-370, CA-99-3947-7-20) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 19, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren Thomas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Warren Thomas, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Thomas , Nos. CR-95-370; CA-99-3947-7-20 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 2, 2001; entered Jan. 4, 2001).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Saledad (Charlie) GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27886.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1955.

*732No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon his plea of guilty before the court, appellant was convicted for making *two*separate sales of beer in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $200 on each count, totaling $400.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*JOSEPH B. MARION

(14007)

Heiman, Spear and Hennessy, Js.

Argued December 4, 1995

decision released January 9, 1996

*907
      *Joseph B. Marion,*pro se, the appellant (defendant).

*Jack W. Fischer,*assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *MarkS. Solak,*state’s attorney, *Paul Narducci*and *Vincent Dooley,*assistant state’s attorneys, *saadDavidJ. Sheldon,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HAROLD COST,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 300 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all 

remaining issues. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

(1) Did not the Superior Court panel misapply and expand this Court’s decision 

in Commonwealth v. Lyles, 97 A.3d 298 (Pa. 2014), in reversing the grant 

of suppression by the trial court, because where two officers retain control 

of a person’s identification in order to run a background check while 

continuing to question him about his possessions, the interaction is 

escalated from a mere encounter to an investigative detention?
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-04711, No.
333-24257 and No. 333-43855) of Communication Intelligence Corporation of our
report dated March 25, 1998 appearing in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to us under
the heading "Experts" in such Prospectuses.

PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP
San Jose, California
March 30, 1998
#### DENNIS W. BYARS *v.*WHYCO CHROMIUM COMPANY ET AL.

(15287)

Dupont, C. J., and Spear and Hennessy, Js.

Submitted on briefs February 13

decision released March 12, 1996

*939
      *Dennis W. Byars,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff), filed a brief.

*Scott Wilson Williams*filed a brief for the appel-lees (defendants).

PER CURIAM.

The decision of the workers’ compensation review board is affirmed.
EXHIBIT
31.2
   CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
   SECTION
302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   I,
Francis V. Dane, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Communication Intelligence
Corporation;
  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 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;
  (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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;
  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 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
9, 2008
  /s/
Francic V. Dane
 Principal
Financial Officer
ex_139593.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


Plumas Bank


Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement


For Richard L. Belstock


2019-1 Benefit Increase Amendment


 


WHEREAS, Plumas Bank (hereinafter “Employer”) established the Plumas Bank Supplemental Executive Retirement Agreement effective April 1, 2016 (hereinafter “Agreement”), for Richard L. Belstock (hereinafter "Executive"); and


 


WHEREAS, the Employer’s intention is to have the Agreement comply with Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (hereinafter “IRC 409A) and provide certain benefits to the Executive in the form of supplemental retirement deferred compensation payments which shall commence upon the certain events within the Executive’s Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Employer now wishes to amend the Agreement to increase the supplemental retirement deferred compensation annual benefit, which is in line with the desires of the Employer and the associated Employer's Board of Directors as it relates to the benefit provided for within the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, Article 9, Amendments and Termination, subsection 9.1, Amendments, of the Agreement provides for the modification of the Agreement through the execution of a mutually agreed upon amendment by the Bank and the Executive; and


 


WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Bank and the Executive to amend the Agreement pursuant to the authority granted within Article 9 of the Agreement as evidenced by the Bank’s and the Executive’s execution below.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which shall not be questioned, the Bank and Executive do hereby amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1)          Table A, Retirement Benefit, “$54,000 per year” within the column titled Amount of Benefit, is deleted and replaced with the following:


 


“$76,500.00 per year”


 


2)          All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and in effect as presently written.


 



 




 




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and the Executive both acknowledge that each has carefully read this First Amendment and has executed an original on the this the 1st day of April 2019, to be immediately effective upon the execution of the Bank and the Executive herein below.


 


Plumas Bank               


 


By: /s/ Andrew J. Ryback                                   


 


Title: President and Chief Executive Officer                  


 


Date: April 1, 2019


 


Executive: Richard L. Belstock               


 


By: /s/ Richard L. Belstock                                   


 


Title: EVP and Chief Financial Officer                  


 


Date: April 1, 2019