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

No. 27405.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 23, 1955.

William J. Lowe, Clarendon, for appellant.

Allen Harp, Dist. Atty., Childress, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $500. The grounds of aggravation alleged were that the assault occurred in a “place where persons are assembled for the purpose of innocent amusement”, as denounced by Section 2 of Article 1147, V.A.P.C.

All prior opinions are withdrawn.

In view of our disposition of this cause, a recitation of , the facts will not be deemed necessary.

Appellant objected to the court’s charge because it failed to submit the question of whether or not the domino hall where the assault took place was such a place as comes within the purview of the above article. Appellant produced two witnesses who testified that they played dominoes often at the hall in question, that the charge was ten cents a game and was paid by the loser, and that on each occasion they played the loser paid a dime for the use of the table to the owner of the business.

This, we have concluded, was sufficient evidence to require the submission of the issue as to whether or not the domino hall was a place where persons were assembled for the purpose of innocent amusement or was a place such as is denounced by Article 616, V.A.P.C. Hall v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 34 S.W. 122. This became a material issue because the offense was not aggravated assault unless committed at the particular place named in the complaint and statute, and such issue should have been submitted to the jury.

The appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted, the affirmance is set aside, and the *533'judgment is now reversed and the cause remanded.

DAVIDSON, Judge

(concurring).

The Undisputed facts show that this ■domino hall was a place where persons did bet and wager at a game of dominoes, in •violation of Art. 616, Vernon’s P.C.

The domino hall, therefore, was not and •could not have been a “place where persons •are assembled for the purpose of innocent •amusement-.”

An adverse finding on the part of the jury under the charge which Presiding Judge Morrison concludes should have been given —that is, that the domino hall was a place •of innocent amusement — would not and could not have changed the undisputed facts showing that the domino hall was a place where people resorted for the purpose .of •gambling.

The facts are insufficient to support the ■ conviction, and I would reverse the case for ithat reason. " •
#### THIEM et al. v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 4, 1954.

Thomas W. Hardesty, Newport, John Y. Brown, Lexington, for Thiem.

Daniel W. Daviess, Newport, for the 'Farleys. ■■■’'■' ■ - ■ ■ •

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen,, Wm. J. Wise, Newport, for appellee.

-PER CURIAM., ■ -

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Campbell Circuit Court .convicting .all three-, appellants, on a joint trial of the offense of keeping a house of ill fame.

Appellants, Taylor Farley and Josh Farley, were each fined $200 and given a year in jail. They insist the court was without jurisdiction to try them as they had never been arrested or served with process and were not before the court. The Attorney General concedes this to be the fact and the judgment of conviction as to these appellants is- void and must be reversed. Their motion for an appeal is sustained and the judgment so far as it relates to them is reversed. ■ . ■

Appellant, Thiem, was fined $200. He insists the indictment was demurrable. ' A reading of the indictment discloses it follows the wording of the statute and is good. Mc.George v. Com., 237 Ky. 358, 35 S.W.2d 530.

Thiem.next contends incompetent evidence was admitted against him and with, it excluded he was entitled to a peremptory instruction and the verdict was against .the law -and evidence. A reading of the ,reco,fdi discloses there was no incompetent-evidence admitted, -and there was *196sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury and sustain the verdict. His objection really goes to the weight to be given the evidence rather than its competency. Of course, the weight to be given the evidence is for the jury rather than the reviewing court.

Thiem also insists the trial judge erred in not granting him a separate trial. The right of joint defendants to separate trials applies only in felony cases. Criminal Code of Practice § 237; Lanham v. Com., 250 Ky. 500, 63 S.W.2d 585. A reading of the record discloses the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling appellant’s motion for a separate trial.

Appellant Thiem’s motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment as to him is affirmed.

Judgment as to Taylor and Josh Farley is reversed and it is affirmed as to Thiem.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.06 N 76.88 W Meters AGL
### Re: stack tests for sulfuric acid mist at 4 corners Units 1-5 Ann Lyons to: John Barth 04/19/2011 02:43 PM Cc: Anita Lee John - Because we are currently in the public comment period, we will adding a copy of this email inter-change to the FCPP docket. We do not have stack test information for sulfuric acid mist for FCPP. Please see our Technical Support Document at about page 64 for further information. Ann Lyons USEPA, R9, Office of Regional Counsel ph: 415-972-3883 email: lyons.ann@epa.gov John Barth 04/15/2011 08:44:08 AM Hi Ann In preparing comments on EPA's 4 corne...
From: John Barth <barthlawoffice@gmail.com> To: Ann Lyons/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 04/15/2011 08:44 AM Subject: stack tests for sulfuric acid mist at 4 corners Units 1-5



### Hi Ann In preparing comments on EPA's 4 corners BART proposal, we have been looking for stack tests conducted at 4 corners units 1-5 for sulfuric acid mist. We have been unable to find them in the docket. Can you confirm whether any such stack tests exists and if so, could we get a copy of the results? Thanks. John Barth Attorney at Law P.O. Box 409 Hygiene, CO 80533 (303) 774-8868 barthlawoffice @ gmail

. com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,582,996
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  283,619
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,008
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,908,145
<PP&E>                                       2,716,886
<DEPRECIATION>                                 441,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,746,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          636,752
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,922
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,048,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,746,395
<SALES>                                        823,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               823,918
<CGS>                                          931,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,500,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,772
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (26,966)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (661,392)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,023
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (663,415)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (663,415)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.45)

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2075 

To require that spent nuclear fuel be stored in certified dry cask storage, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2011 

Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. BERKLEY, and Mrs. LOWEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require that spent nuclear fuel be stored in certified 

dry cask storage, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Dry Cask Storage 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DRY CASK SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE. 

7 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission designates spent nuclear 

9 fuel contained in storage pools as qualified to be placed 

10 in dry cask storage certified by the Commission, such 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2075 IH

1 spent nuclear fuel shall be moved from such pools and 

2 placed in certified dry casks. 

3 (b) COSTS OF COMPLIANCE.—The Secretary of En4 ergy shall determine the costs required for compliance 

5 with subsection (a) by the owner of spent nuclear fuel, 

6 and shall reduce by that amount the amount due from 

7 that owner pursuant to section 302 of the Nuclear Waste 

8 Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222). 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

David H. Sawyer 

In re E Wilson, Minor 

Presiding Judge 

Docket No. 332866 

Jane E. Markey 

LC No. 14-054181-NA 

Colleen A. O'Brien 

Judges 

The Court orders that the October I 0, 2016 opinion is hereby AMENDED to correct a 

clerical error. The opinion is corrected to read November 10, 2016 as the date of the opinion. 

In all other respects, the opinion remains unchanged. 

A true copy entered and certified by Jerome W. Zimmer Jr., Chief Clerk, on 

NOV 1 8 2016 

Date
Exhibit
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      OF CEO 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 Victoria Industries, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Albert
      Abdoulline, as a Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)       
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.





By:
                /S/ Albert AbdoullineAlbert
                AbdoullineCFODate:
                November 14, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



I, Brett White, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Corio, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Corio, Inc.





|Date: November 14, 2003 | /s/    Brett
White
|----------------------- | ------------------
|                        |                   

---
|   | 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:            April 13, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/            Jay Rifkin |
|                            |   |   |                      | Jay RifkinChief Executive                Officer |
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 208 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the reimbursement 

of mental health counselors under TRICARE, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2011 

Mr. ROONEY (for himself and Mr. KISSELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the 

reimbursement of mental health counselors under 

TRICARE, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SERVICES OF MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELORS. 

4 (a) REIMBURSEMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH COUN5 SELORS UNDER TRICARE.— 

6 (1) REIMBURSEMENT UNDER TRICARE.—Sec7 tion 1079(a)(8) of title 10, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘or licensed or certified 

10 mental health counselors’’ after ‘‘certified marVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:57 Jan 12, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H208.IH H208

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 208 IH

1 riage and family therapists’’ both places it ap2 pears; and 

3 (B) by inserting ‘‘or licensed or certified 

4 mental health counselors’’ after ‘‘that the thera5 pists’’. 

6 (2) AUTHORITY TO ASSESS MEDICAL OR PSY7 CHOLOGICAL NECESSITY OF SERVICE OR SUPPLY.— 

8 Section 1079(a)(13) of such title is amended by in9 serting ‘‘, licensed or certified mental health coun10 selor,’’ after ‘‘certified marriage and family thera11 pist’’. 

12 (b) SERVICES OF MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELORS.— 

13 (1) AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO PERSONAL

14 SERVICES CONTRACTS.—Section 704(c)(2) of the 

15 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

16 1995 (Public Law 103–337; 108 Stat. 2799; 10 

17 U.S.C. 1091 note) is amended by inserting ‘‘mental 

18 health counselors,’’ after ‘‘psychologists,’’. 

19 (2) APPLICABILITY OF LICENSURE REQUIRE20 MENT FOR HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONALS.—Section 

21 1094(e)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 

22 amended by inserting ‘‘mental health counselor,’’ 

23 after ‘‘psychologist,’’. 

24 (c) REPORTS.— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 208 IH

1 (1) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

3 of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the 

4 implementation of the amendments made by this 

5 section. 

6 (2) UPDATED REPORT.—Not later than one 

7 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

8 Secretary shall submit to Congress an update to the 

9 report submitted under paragraph (1). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 21.1**    **Legal Entities** **Jurisdiction** D-R Central Service    GmbH & Co. KG     Germany    D-R Holdings (France) S.A.S.     France    D-R Holdings (Germany) GmbH     Germany    D-R Holdings (Netherlands) B.V.     Netherlands    D-R Holdings Norway AS     Norway    D-R Holdings (U.K.) Ltd.     United Kingdom    D-R International Sales LLC     Cayman Islands    D-R Management GmbH     Germany    D-R Nadrowski Holdings GmbH     Germany    D-R Steam LLC     United States of America    Dresser-Rand (Nigeria) Ltd.     Nigeria    Dresser-Rand (SEA) Pte. Ltd.     Singapore    Dresser-Rand (U.K.) Ltd.     United Kingdom    Dresser-Rand AS     Norway    Dresser-Rand Asia Pacific Sdn. Bhd.     Malaysia    Dresser-Rand B.V.     Netherlands    Dresser-Rand Canada, Inc.     Canada    Dresser-Rand CIS     Moscow    Dresser-Rand Comercio e Industria    Ltda.     Brazil    Dresser-Rand Company     United States of America    Dresser-Rand Company Ltd.     United Kingdom    Dresser-Rand Compressor (Suzhou)    Ltd.     China    Dresser-Rand de Mexico S.A. de C.V.     Mexico    Dresser-Rand de Venezuela, S.A.     Venezuela    Dresser-Rand do Brasil, Ltda.     Brazil    Dresser-Rand Global Services, LLC     United States of America    Dresser-Rand GmbH     Germany    Dresser-Rand Holding (Delaware)    LLC     United States of America    Dresser-Rand India Private Limited     India    Dresser-Rand International B.V.     Netherlands    Dresser-Rand Italia S.r.l     Italy    Dresser-Rand Japan Ltd.     Japan    Dresser-Rand LLC     United States of America    Dresser-Rand Machinery Repair    Belgie N.V.     Belgium    Dresser-Rand Nadrowski Turbinen    GmbH     Germany    Dresser-Rand Overseas Sales    Company Ltd.      United States of America    Dresser-Rand Power LLC     United States of America    Dresser-Rand S.A.      France    Dresser-Rand s.r.o.      Czech Republic    Dresser-Rand Sales Company    S.A.      Switzerland    Dresser-Rand Services B.V.      Netherlands    Dresser-Rand Services, S. de R.L.    de C.V.      Mexico    Dresser-Rand Services, S.a.r.l     Switzerland    Dresser-Rand Thailand, LLC     United States of America    PT Dresser-Rand Services Indonesia     Indonesia    Turbodyne Electric Power    Corporation     United States of America
Exhibit








Exhibit 4.1


Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
6301 Fitch Path
New Albany, Ohio 43054
(614) 283-6500


March 27, 2017 




United States Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549


Re:     Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
Commission File Number: 001-12107
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended January 28, 2017 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Abercrombie & Fitch Co., a Delaware corporation (“A&F”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of A&F for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2017 (“A&F’s Fiscal 2016 Form 10-K”).


Neither (i) A&F nor (ii) any of A&F’s consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to A&F’s Fiscal 2016 Form 10-K, under which the total amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of A&F and A&F’s subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, A&F hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each instrument or agreement defining (i) the rights of holders of long-term debt of A&F or (ii) the rights of holders of long-term debt of a consolidated subsidiary of A&F, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to A&F’s Fiscal 2016 Form 10-K.


	
			
	 
	 
	Very truly yours,

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ JOANNE C. CREVOISERAT

	 
	 
	Joanne C. Crevoiserat
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Authorized Officer)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2049 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the limitation 

on capital losses to $10,500 and to index such limitation to inflation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2011 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase 

the limitation on capital losses to $10,500 and to index 

such limitation to inflation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON CAPITAL LOSSES OF INDIVID4 UALS INCREASED TO $10,500. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 1211(b) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to limita7 tion on capital losses) is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(1)(A) in the case of married individual filing 

9 a separate return, 50 percent of the amount in effect 

10 under subparagraph (B) for the taxable year, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2049 IH

1 ‘‘(B) $10,500 in any other case, or’’. 

2 (b) COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.—Section 1211 of 

3 such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 

4 new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(c) COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxable 

7 year beginning in a calendar year after calendar 

8 year 2011, the $10,500 amount under subsection 

9 (b)(1)(B) shall be increased by an amount equal 

10 to— 

11 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by 

12 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter13 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar 

14 year in which the taxable year begins, deter15 mined by substituting ‘calendar year 2010’ for 

16 ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) 

17 thereof. 

18 ‘‘(2) ROUNDING.—If any amount after adjust19 ment under paragraph (1) is not a multiple of $100, 

20 such amount shall be rounded to the next higher 

21 multiple of $100.’’. 

22 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

24 December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS