alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### LORMAN v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 11, 1954.

*244Calvert C. Little, London, for' appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

'MILLJKEN, Justice.

The appellant was convicted of the illegal possession of liquor in dry territory, fined $50, and sentenced to thirty days in jail. No direct evidence was presented at the trial, and the appellant was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone, about which this court has said:

> “* * * circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction must be so unequivocal and incriminating as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence * * * ” and “ * * * circumstantial evidence as reasonably consistent with innocence as with guilt is insufficient to sustain conviction.” Abrams v. Com., Ky., 243 S.W.2d 902, 904.

In accordance with a- warrant, the sheriff and two deputies searched appellant’s heme and premises and found several empty legal liquor bottles (pints and half-pints) which the appellant claims his little boys had collected to use in a garden they were making. One of the deputies' said there was a little whisky in one of the bottles and a couple of the other bottles smelled like moonshine, but the sheriff and the other deputy denied that. There was the usual evidence that the appellant’s reputation as to having illegal liquor in his possession was bad. During the search the sheriff went across the road and found six half-gallons of moonshine hidden under some leaves in a wooded thicket. These jugs were not on appellant’s property, but were on the property of another person across the road from his house, some 200 feet and some 300 feet from it. The only thing that connected appellant with the moonshine at all was the fact that the path leading to the liquor was directly across the road from his home. However, there is evidence that this path forked and lead to other houses “over the hill,” that the path was used by many people, and other houses were as close to the hidden whisky as was the appellant’s. The jury visited the' site.

It may be that this was appellant’s' whis-ky,-yet any number of other persons could’ have put it there, and could have done so without appellant’s knowledge because he could not even see this spot in his neighbor’s thicket from his home.

The fact situation in this instance is very similar to that in Layer v. Com., 204 Ky. 510, 264 S.W. 1097, 1098, wherein the court said:

> “From the record it appears to us that he was convicted solely because liquor was found on the adjoining premises, a pathway was found leading from his premises (from his back door) to the place where the liquor was found, and his reputation for observing the laws against the possession, use, and sale of intoxicating liquors was shown to be bad.

> “At- the conclusion of, the commonwealth’s evidence, the appellant moved the court for a peremptory instruction. This should have been given.”

We conclude that the evidence adduced to support the conviction is not so free of reasonable doubt as to meet the standard of evidence required for conviction by the Criminal Code of Practice, § 238.

The judgment is reversed.
#### EASON v. STATE.

No. 26649.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. *25,*1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

■Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offense of felony theft, and it is further set forth in the indictment that he had been twice convicted at former times of felonious of-, fenses.

Appellant filed an affidavit of insanity, alleging not only that he was insane at the time of the • commission of the main offense but that he was also insane at the time of the trial. These matters were submitted to the jury, who found that he was not insane on the day of the alleged commission of this offense, and also^ that he was not insane at the time of the trial of this cause. Appellant’ was thus put on-trial relative to the theft of property over the value of fifty dollars in the instant case, and the'jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed his punishment at confinement "in the state penitentiary for a term of eight years.

The court, in entering its judgment herein, set forth, among other things, the verdict of the jury in answer to the question of insanity in both instances. The court also set forth in said judgment the verdict of the jury in the present case assessing the appellant’s punishment as above stated, but in said judgment the court failed to find appellant to have been guilty of the offenses charged herein. However, in said judgment he did leave all the salient facts set forth but draws no conclusion therefrom. We, therefore, amend said judgment to show that appellant was found to be sane in both instances relative to. his pleas of insanity and that appellant is also found to be guilty of the offense charged in the indictment, to wit, theft of property oyer the value of fifty dollars and his punishment assessed therein at a term of eight years in the state penitentiary.

It is observed, however, that in the sentence the court correctly set forth the conviction herein and sentenced appellant to confinement in the state penitentiary for not less than two nor more than eight years in accordance with the law.

We think this matter is governed by the opinion of this court in Robison v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 150 S.W. 912, wherein it is said:

> “This court will enter the proper judgment * * * and the clerk will write up the judgment in this court *403conforming it to the verdict of the jury * * *. The statute in this state authorizes this court to correct and reform judgments.”

See Article 847, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.; McCorquodale v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 344, 98 S.W. 879; also Article 766, subd. 9, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., and annotations thereunder.

As this judgment is reformed, the same will be affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4449 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4449

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain acrylic staple 
                                fibers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain acrylic staple 
                                fibers.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC STAPLE FIBERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.16 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain acrylic staple 
fibers) is amended by striking the date in the effective period column 
and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 Solitron Devices, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Shevach Saraf, Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

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

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

Date:   July 13,  2004                  /s/  Shevach Saraf
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Shevach Saraf
                                        Chairman, President and Chief Executive
                                        Officer,Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                        Officer
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15

- 1386 V

Filed: March 9, 2016

Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TERRI DAVIS

, *

*

Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza ;

* Shoulder Injury ( “ SIRVA ” ) ;

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”)

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeffrey S. Pop, Jeffrey S. Pop & Associates, Beverly Hills, CA

, for petitioner.

Lara Englund , U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On November 16, 2015

, Petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. , 2 [ the

“Vaccine Act” or “Program”]. Peti tioner alleges that s he suffered a shoulder injury

following receipt of her October 20, 2014 influenza vaccination

. Petit ion at 1

. The case

was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 9, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) r eport in which she concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensa tion in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1 . Specifically, respondent “ opines that petitioner’s alleged injury is consistent with a

shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) ” and “ further agrees that

petitioner’ s SIRVA was caused

- in

- fact by the flu vaccination administered in her left arm

on October 20, 2014. ” Id. at 4

. Respondent further agrees that n o other cause of

petitioner ’ s injury has been identified, that the statutory six month sequela requirement

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the

undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 not e (2012)(Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits

within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. §

300aa (2012 ).has been satisfied , and that petitioner has sati sfied all legal prerequisites for

compensation under the Vaccine Act

. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the

undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 186 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24520]



[[Page 57596]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-544-000]


Carnegie Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

September 19, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 15, 2000, Carnegie Interstate 
Pipeline Company (CIPCO), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 7
Second Revised Sheet No. 126
Third Revised Sheet No. 127

    CIPCO requests that the Commission approve the first tariff sheet 
identified above effective March 27, 2000, and approve the other two 
tariff sheets effective October 1, 2000, and requests a waiver of all 
Commission rules and regulations so as to implement such effective 
date.
    CIPCO states that the filed tariff sheets are being filed to (a) 
eliminate the maximum rate ceilings for short-term capacity release 
transactions through September 30, 2002; and (b) to facilitate 
compliance with Order No. 637 and the revised reporting requirements in 
Section 161.3(1)(2) of the Commission's Regulations.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-24520 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 10.4 Promissory Note





EXHIBIT 10.4


10.4 Promissory Note dated July 13, 2001 between David Hancock and
     CommunicateNow.com, Inc.



                                 Promissory Note
$ 15,000.00 USD                   Temple, Texas               Date July 13, 2001


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, after date, without grace, in the manner, on the dates, and
in the amounts so herein stipulated, the Undersigned, Communicate Now.com Inc.

PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF : David Hancock, At Temple, Texas in Bell County

                THE SUM OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($15,000.00)

In lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender, in
payments of all debts and dues, public and private at the time of payment, and
to pay interest thereon from the date until maturity at the rate of 6.5% per
annum, payable as stipulated herein.

THIS NOTE IS DUE AND PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:

Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15,000.00) principal due on December 13, 2001,
interest due on the 13th of each month (monthly interest amount 81.25)

IT IS AGREED that time is of the essence of this agreement, and that in the
event of default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when
due, the holder of this note may declare the entirety of the evidenced herby due
and payable without notice, and failure to exercise said option shall not
constitute a waiver on part of the holder of the right to exercise the same at
any other time.

IN THE EVENT of default in the making of any payment herein provided, either or
principal or interest, or in the event the entirety of said note evidenced
hereby is declared due, interest shall accrue at the rate of 10.0% per annum
from such time.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES to pay all expenses incurred, including an
additional 10.0% on the amount of principal and interest hereof as attorney's
fees, all of which shall become part of the principal hereof, if this note is
placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or if collected by suite or
through any probate, bankruptcy or other legal proceedings,

EACH MAKER, SURETY and endorser waives demand, grace, notice, presentment for
payment, and protest and agrees and consents that this note an the liens
securing its payment, may be renewed, and the time of payment extended without
notice, and without releasing any of the parties.


                             CommunicateNow.Com Inc.


                    ----------------------------------------
                            David Hancock, President
|                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------
|                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)         
|View History: Annual                                   
|View History: Annual                                   
|View History:                                          
|                                                       
|Louisiana Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                       
|                                                       
|Louisiana Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,917  | 4,775  | 5,296  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
• 

BMVIT- IV/L 1 (Strategie und Internationales) 

Postanschrift Postfach 201, 1000 Wien 

Büroanschrift Radetzkystraße 2, 1030 Wien 

E-Mail: 11@bmvit.gv.at 

Internet: ww

.bmvit.gv.at 

(Antwort bitte unter Anführung der GZ. 

an die oben angeführte E-Mail-Adresse) 

GZ. BMVIT -40.005/0005-IV/L 1/2014 DVR:0000175 

Mr 

Paul Gretch, Director, Office of International Aviation 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Aviation and International Affairs 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 7th Street, S.W. Room 6402 

Washington, DC 20590 

Paul.gretch@dot.gov 

Dear Mr. Gretch, 

nn vu on und Ternnolog' 

Vienna, 5 August 2014 

With reference to the intentions of the Austri an designated carier Global Jet Austria GmbH (Note 

Verbal of the Embassy of Ausria dated 13th of November 2006) according to the provisions of the 

bilateral air services agreement (Air Services Agreement between the Austrian Federal 

Government and the Government of the United States of America, done at Vienna on 16th of 

March 1989, as amended) to conduct on-scheduled ( charter) air services to/from the United 

States based on fifth, sixth or seventh freedom traffic rights and referring to the designation of the 

said airline the Austrian Civil Aviation Authority hereby confirms that similar requests submitted by 

the U.S. carriers will be treated on the basis of reciprocity. 

Sincerely Yours 

APo 

Silvia Gehre 

Director, Air Transport Affairs 

Federal Ministry of Transport, 

Innovation and Technology 

Civil Aviation Authority
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|Texas--RRC District 8 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|Texas--RRC District 8 Crude Oil Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | NA     | NA     | 168    | 234   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 280    | 237    | 258    | 165    | 218    | 333    | 466    | 454    | 537    | 679   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 790    | 934    | 1,144  | 1,057  | 1,441  | 2,079  | 2,698  | 3,814  | 4,790  | 4,439 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,433  | 3,159  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2148

_____________________________

DEXTER B. BOWERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

June 20, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Dexter B. Bowers, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Thomas H. Duffy, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.