alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WHITE v. STATE.

No. 25699.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 6, 1952.

Allen, Locke & Crampton, Roger W. Crampton, Wichita Falls, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for bribery of a peace officer; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The prosecution arose under Art. 173, P. C., which makes it unlawful to “bribe, or offer to bribe,” a peace officer to do or not to do certain acts in violation of his duty as an officer.

The offense denounced under this statute is composed of two elements: One is the bribe, while the other is the offer to bribe.

The instant indictment charges bribery and not an offer to bribe. Hence, the sufficiency of the evidence to support this conviction must foe weighed in determining whether a bribe is shown.

To constitute the offense of bribery of an officer, there must be shown not only the offer on the part of the briber but acceptance thereof by the one who is bribed. Selvidge v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 489, 72 S.W.2d 1079.

Here, the deputy sheriff who the indictment charged was bribed testified directly that he did not accept the bribe but told the appellant he would have to take the offer up with his superior, the sheriff. Indeed, at one plac'e in the testimony of the witness, he strongly suggests that the alleged bribe money was given to him for a purpose entirely different from that alleged in the indictment. In any event, the testimony shows nothing more than an offer to bribe, as distinguished from the completed offense of bribery.

Believing the facts insufficient to sustain the allegations of the indictment, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
AA-i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC Annual Energy Consumption 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

AHRI Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers

ASM Annual Survey of Manufacturers

BOM bill of materials

BT building technologies

BTU British thermal units

CAC Central air conditioners and heat pumps

CBEC Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency

CFC chlorofluorocarbons

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIR Current Industry Reports

COGS cost of goods sold

CMER consumer marginal energy rates

CSL candidate standard level

DC direct current

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

ECM electronically commutated motors

EER energy efficiency ratio

EEV electronic expansion valve

EIA Energy Information Administration

EISA 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPACT 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005

EPCA Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

FTC U.S. Federal Trade Commission

GRIM Government Regulatory Impact Model

HCFC hydrocholorofluorcarbon 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon

HSPF heating seasonal performance factor

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

ImSET Impact of Sector Energy Technologies

kWh kilowatt hours 

LCC life-cycle cost

LSHX liquid-suction heat exchangers

MPC manufacturing production cost

MIA manufacturer impact analysis
AA-ii

MLP manufacturer list price

MPC manufacturer production cost

MSP manufacturer selling price

MTA market and technology assessment

NAECA National Energy Conservation Act of 1987

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NEMS National Energy Modeling System

NES national energy savings

NIA national impact analysis

NPV net present value

NOPR Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

OHA Office of Hearings and Appeals

PBP payback period

PPI producer price indices 

PSI pounds per square inch

PSC permanent split capacitor

R&D research and development

RTTC Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center

RIA regulatory impact analysis 

SANOPR Supplemental Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SBA U.S. Small Business Administration

SDHV small duct, high velocity

SEC U.S. Securities Exchange Commission

SEER seasonal energy efficiency ratio

SET saturated evaporator temperature

SNOPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

SPM shaded-pole motors

SPVU single-package, vertical unit

SWEF shipment weighted efficiency data

TSD Technical Support Document 

TSL trial standard level

TTW through-the-wall

TXV thermostatic expansion valve

USC United States Code

W watt

WACC weighted-average cost of capital
Exhibit 32(a)

              SECTION 1350 Certification (Chief Executive Officer)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coastal Financial Corporation, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I Michael C. Gerald,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of 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 results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the period covered by the Report.

This Certification is provided as of May 13, 2004.


                                               /s/ Michael C. Gerald
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Michael C. Gerald
                                               President/Chief Executive Officer


                                       31
EXHIBIT
      32.2





**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A (the “Report”) of Vitasti,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, the
      undersigned Tammy-Lynn McNabb, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
      undersigneds’ knowledge and belief:





(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:
      May
      18, 2006       /s/
      Tammy-Lynn McNabb _______________________


Tammy-Lynn
      McNabb, Chief
      Financial Officer
1 

### Sutton, Tia

From: Sutton, Tia Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 10:43 AM To: 'Whiteman, Chad' Cc: Hengst, Benjamin Subject: Aircraft GHG package Attachments: Aircraft GHG to OMB 6-9-15.docx



### Hi Chad, Please see attached for our passback. Please give me a call when you get a chance so we can discuss n ext steps and upload plans.

Thanks, Tia
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

###### [Notice 00-132]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of prospective patent license.

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that Tektronix, Inc., of Beaverton, OR has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,780 and 5,426,512 both entitled “Image Data Compression Having Minimum Perceptual Error” which are assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to NASA Ames Research Center. 

# DATES:

Responses to this notice must be received by January 2, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Padilla, Patent Counsel, NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 202A-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, telephone (650) 604-5104. 

Dated: October 26, 2000.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00-28002 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### ALLEN v. STATE.

No. 23010.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1945.

Mandell & Wright, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin,, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for assault to murder in which the habitual criminal statute was invoked and the penalty assessed was life in the penitentiary.

It will not be necessary to discuss the facts of the case. A motion to quash the indictment was timely filed and we think it should have been sustained as to the second and third paragraphs. The first paragraph correctly charges the offense of assault to murder.

The second and third paragraphs contain allegations of former convictions in other counties of Texas, dated July twenty-first, 1941, and December twelfth, 1933. It is not alleged that the crime set out in the second paragraph, for which the conviction was had in 1941, was committed subsequent to the trial and conviction of 1933. In the absence of such allegations the State would *not*be permitted to *make*proof of such fact and the penalty assessed could not be sustained. We had the identical question under consideration in the case of Square v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852, and would hardly be able to write more definitely in the instant case than in that opinion. The leading cases on the subject were discussed and followed in the Square case. See also Harrison v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 168 S.W.2d 243. We do not feel at this time that our position should be changed and, for the reason therein set out, the trial court should have quashed the second and third paragraphs in the indictment as found in the record now before us.

The argument presented on the question of race discrimination is not viewed with great favor by the writer of this opinion. We see no excuse for the assertions made. Appellant admitted a criminal record extending into several states. She had served a term in the Alabama penitentiary between the two former convictions in Texas, and had been arrested on felony charges in other states. Her story as a witness denying the charge *471in the instant case was not calculated to impress any fair minded jury. That they found her guilty could occasion no great .surprise. Had she been white she would, in all probability, have been found guilty and the sentence would follow as a matter •of law.

The judgment of the trial court is re-versed and the cause remanded with in•structions to quash the second and third paragraphs in the indictment.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3260 

Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2013 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

Eliminating the debt ceiling for a period defined, 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 ‘‘Fiscal Sanity Act for 

5 the National Debt’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NONAPPLICABILITY OF DEBT CEILING. 

7 Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall 

8 not apply for the period beginning on the date of the en9 actment of this Act and ending 60 days thereafter. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 No. 333-112082 and the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-116085, 333-103655, 333-89438, 333-61446, 333-82473, 333-60779
and 333-58285) of Evolving Systems, Inc. of our report dated March 22, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver,
Colorado
March 22, 2006

---



QuickLinks
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3304]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 17, 2000, I find that Wayne County, Michigan constitutes a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and flooding that occurred September 10-11, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on December 16, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on July 17, 2001, at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the contiguous counties of Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, and Washtenaw in the State of Michigan may be filed until the specified date at the above location. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
7.375Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.687Businesses with credit available elsewhere
8.000Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
4.000Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
6.750For Economic Injury:Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
4.000
 The numbers assigned to this disaster are 330406 for physical damage and 9J3400 for economic injury. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: October 20, 2000. Allan I. Hoberman, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 00-27782 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EX-10.5



 






Exhibit 10.5




AMENDMENT TO

WESCO INTERNATIONAL, INC.

1998 STOCK OPTION PLAN




     Pursuant to Section 9 of the WESCO International, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”),
the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



     1. Section 8 of the Plan is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:




     “8. Change in Control. Unless otherwise provided by
the Committee in the applicable Stock Option Agreement, in the event
of Change in Control, all Options outstanding on the date of such
Change in Control shall become immediately and fully exercisable.
The provisions of this Section 8 shall not be applicable to any
Options granted to a Participant if any Change in Control results
from such Participant’s beneficial ownership (within the meaning of
Rule 13d.3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) of
Common Stock.”



     2. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment, the other terms and conditions of the Plan
are hereby ratified, affirmed and confirmed in all respects.
[Cite as State v. Gold , 2013-Ohio-5813.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NO. 2012-P-0134 - vs - : KANDI R. GOLD, : Defendant-Appellee. :

Criminal Appeal from the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, Case No. R2012 TRC 07082. Judgment: Reversed and remanded.

Victor V. Vigluicci , Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder , Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellant).

Brian L. Coffman , 159 South Main Street, Suite 808, Akron, OH 44308 (For Defendant-Appellee).

THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J. {¶1} This accelerated calendar appeal is from an order of the Portage County Municipal Court, Ravenna Division, granting the motion to suppress the results of a breath test performed on an Intoxilyzer 8000. Appellant, the State of Ohio, contends that the trial court erred in allowing appellee, Kandi R. Gold, to raise a general attack upon the reliability of the breath test machine, and assigns the following error:2 {¶2} “The Portage County Municipal Court erred as a matter of law by permitting a general attack on the scientific re liability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 contrary to

Ohio statutes and well-established case law.” {¶3} As a threshold matter, we note that appellee styled her challenge to the reliability of the breath test machine as a moti on in limine rather a motion to suppress. “The determination of whether a motion is a ‘motion to suppress’ or a ‘motion in limine’ does not depend on what it is labeled. It depends on the type of relief it seeks to

obtain.” State v. Davidson , 17 Ohio St.3d 132, 135 (1985). Thus, despite the caption, our review of appellee’s motion to exclude the Intoxilyzer 8000 results indicates that it was, in fact, a motion to suppress, which if granted, would diminish appellant’s ability to prosecute her. Id

. {¶4} Pursuant to this court’s en banc judgment and opinion in State v. Bergman , 11th Dist. Portage 2012-P-0124, 2013-Ohio-___, appellant’s assignment of error has merit. The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and remanded for further proceedings.

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J.,

concur.
**WASHINGTON FEDERAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**EXHIBIT 32**

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**WASHINGTON FEDERAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES**

**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 Washington Federal, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigned’s best knowledge and belief: 

(a) the Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(b) the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated this 11th day of May 2009. 

 
Washington Federal, Inc.(Company)/s/ Roy M. WhiteheadROY M. WHITEHEADChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Brent J. BeardallBRENT J. BEARDALLExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.1

 

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Jinpan International Limited (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| June 9, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Li Zhiyuan          |
|--------------|--------|-------------------------|
|         | Name:  | Li Zhiyuan              |
|         | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |

|              |        |                    |
|--------------|--------|-------------------------|
|              |        |                    |
| June 9, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Mark Du        |
|         | Name:  | Mark Du                 |
|         | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A23A0013. PEACHTREE TALLULAH, LLC v. SNAPFINGER PROPERTIES

OF MARIETTA, LLC.

Following the voluntary dismissal of all claims and counterclaims in this civil

case, the defendant, Peachtree Tallulah, LLC, filed a motion for attorney fees

pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14. The trial court denied the motion, and Peachtree

Tallulah filed this direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction. 

“[A]n application for [a discretionary] appeal isrequired when ‘the underlying

subject matter’ of the appeal is listed in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)[.]” Avren v. Garten, 289

Ga. 186, 192 (7) (710 SE2d 130) (2011). The underlying subject matter of this appeal

— the award of attorney fees pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 — is listed in OCGA §

5-6-35(a) (10). See also Swanson v. Swanson, 216 Ga. App. 406, 406 (454 SE2d 529)

(1995) (on motion for reconsideration) (OCGA § 5-6-35(a) (10) requires a party

seeking to appeal the denial of its motion for attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14

to file an application for a discretionary appeal). Peachtree Tallulah, therefore, was

required to follow the discretionary appeal procedure, and itsfailure to do so deprives

us of jurisdiction. Capricorn Systems v. Godavarthy, 253 Ga. App. 840, 841 (560

SE2d 730) (2002). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

August 11, 2022
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/11/2022