alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
APRIL TERM, 1752.

#### Nicholas Maccubbin *against*William Thornton.

*Bordley*and Dorsey, for appellant,

*Dulany,*for appellee,

THIS was an action on the case against the defendant, who had been sheriff of *Anne Arundel*County, for levying only part *(8l.*sterling) of a debt due the plaintiff upon *a fieri*facias, which he had prosecuted against-•-, on a judgment obtained in the Provincial Court, for the sum of 171/. 9.?. 6<A sterling, debt, and 493 1-2 lbs. of tobacco, costs; whereas there was sufficient property whereby the whole debt and costs might have been levied by the *f. fad*The defendant plead *mil tiel record*of *fieri*facias, to which the plaintiff replied, *habetur tale*recordum, &c. and the Court gave judgment that there was such a record, and that the plaintiff recover of the defendant the sum of 171/. *9s. 9d.*sterling money, debt, and 493 1 2 lbs. tobacco, costs, and costs of *suit;*and the plaintiff, by way of memorandum, released the 8/. sterling, levied on the *fieri facias.*

The defendant brought a writ of error to the Court of - Appeals, and in that Court assigned for error, that the Provincial Court had entered judgment instead of awarding an inquiry of damages.

-At *October*Term, 1754, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Provincial Court.
**Exhibit 23**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

 

The Board of Trustees 

LaSalle HotelProperties: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-104056, 333-86911 and 333-72265) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-104054, 333-51476, 333-44872, 333-76373 and 333-77371) of LaSalle Hotel Properties of our reports dated February 23, 2005, with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of LaSalle Hotel Properties as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, andthe related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of LaSalle Hotel Properties. 

 

(signed) KPMG LLP 

 

Chicago, Illinois

February 23, 2005
Complete the following tables for each sampling point

Plant Name

Sample 

Collection 

Number

Date of Sample 

Collection

Sample Collection 

Time Temperature (°C)

pH

(S.U.)

Set 1Set 2Set 3Set 4

Plant Name

Sample 

Collection 

Number

Influent Samples 

Collected as 

Grabs

(Yes or No)

Mercury and Cyanide 

Samples Collected 

as Grabs

(Yes or No)

Effluent Samples 

Collected as 24-Hour 

Composites

(Yes or No)

Tyvek Suits 

used

(Yes or No)

Dust Masks 

Used for 

Mercury 

(Yes or No)

Clean Hands/Dirty 

Hands Sampling 

Techniques Used

(Yes or No)

Description of Sa

Collection Techniq

different than 

instructions

Set 1Set 2Set 3Set 4
Complete the following tables based on the plant operating characteristics during each set of samples collected

Units Operating 

During Sampling 

Day

Units Off-line 

Entire 

Sampling Day

SCRs/SNCRs 

Operating on 

Units

Set 1Set 2Set 3Set 4

Flow Rate (gpm) Duration

Set 1Set 2Set 3Set 4

Lime Usage 

(tons)

Ferric Chloride 

Usage 

(Liters/day)

Organosulfide Usage 

(Liters/day)

Polymer Usage 

(Liters/day)

Set 1Set 2Set 3Set 4

Percent Hydroclone 

Overflow Recycled 

Back to Scrubber

FGD Wastewater Treatment Operation During Sample C

Plant Name

Sample 

Collection 

Number

Date of Sample 

Collection

Scrubber Purge 

Flow Rate During 

Influent Sample 

Collection

(gpm)

Plant Name

Sample 

Collection 

Number

Date of Sample 

Collection

Plant Operation During Sample Collection

Plant Name

Sample 

Collection 

Number

Date of Sample 

Collection

Plant Operation During Sample Collection

Scrubber Slurry Blowdown Flow 

Rate Scrubber Slurry 

Percent Solids
Unit 1 Unit 2

Daily Power Generation (MW-hrs)

Plant Name Date

Provide the daily power generation for each scrubbed unit starting two weeks prior to the first 

set of samples through the last set of samples
FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow 

Rates

(gpd)

Plant Name Date Chemical Precipitation Effluent

Provide the average flow rate in the FGD wastewater treatment system for each stream included in the 

table starting two weeks prior to the first set of samples through the last set of samples
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 66432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26966]

========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / 
Notices

[[Page 66432]]

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Privacy Act of 1974, System of Records

AGENCY: United States Agency for International Development.

ACTION: Notice to delete system of records.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is 
deleting the AID-15 Employee Payroll Records, system of records in its 
existing inventory.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective on December 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments:
    Paper Comments:
     Fax: (703) 666-5670
     Mail: Chief Privacy Officer, United States Agency for 
International Development, 2733 Crystal Drive, 11th Floor, Arlington, 
Va. 22202
    Electronic Comments:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments.
     Email: privacy@usaid.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions, please contact, 
USAID Privacy Office, United States Agency for International 
Development, 2733 Crystal Drive, 11th Floor, Arlington, VA. 22202. 
Email: privacy@usaid.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USAID has reviewed its Privacy Act systems 
of records. As a result of this review, USAID is deleting the AID-15 
Employee Payroll Records system of records because it is now covered 
under a government-wide system of records: OPM/GOV-1 General Personnel 
Records.

    Dated: October 30, 2012.
William Morgan,
Chief Information Security Officer--Chief Privacy Officer.
AID-15

Deletion:
    Employee Payroll Records

Reason:
    Based upon a review of AID-15, it has been determined that the 
system is already covered under OPM/GOV-1 General Personnel Records.

Meredith Snee,
USAID Privacy Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2012-26966 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
#### SHAFFER v. STATE.

No. 23095.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 4, 1945.

No appearance for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of the theft of an automobile tire and his punishment assessed at a fine of $200 and one year in the county jail.

The proceedings appear regular. The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception, and there is nothing presented to this Court for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals; and approved by the Court.
OCTOBER TERM, 1730.

Lib. R. B. No. 2. fol. 477.

#### John Hyde & Co. *against*Bradford’s Executrix.

THIS was an action of debt upon a bond; the plaintiff at the trial produced the bond without any probate indorsed thereon, 44 that no part or parcel of the same bond had 44 been paid, or any thing else given or delivered towards 44 satisfaction thereof,” according to the act of Assemhly;(a) and upon that ground the defendant objected: But the Court overruled the objection and said that the bond was good evidence without any oath or probate, because the plaintiffs were not in *Maryland*at the time of the execution of the bond, and have resided in *England*ever since, and the said bond was executed in *Maryland.*To this opinion the defendant excepted. Verdict for the plaintiff. At the succeeding term the Provincial Court gave judgment upon the verdict, saying 44 that the deter-44 mination of bills of exceptions on trials at bar does not lie 44 before them, being only determinable on appeals and 44 writs of error, which hath been the constant, practice.”

(a)

 See the act of 1722, c. 10.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 213 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28124]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-368]


Notice of Correction to Federal Register Notice in the Matter of 
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2); Exemption

    On October 18, 2000, the Federal Register published an Exemption to 
Facility Operating License No. NPF-6, which authorizes operation of 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. On page 62376, in the last sentence of 
Section IV, a date was omitted. The sentence should read: ``The staff's 
detailed Safety Evaluation (and this exemption) are enclosures in the 
letter to the licensee dated October 12, 2000.''

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John A. Zwolinski,
Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-28124 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 1 A1 75 8

. J ENNA W HI TLOCK v . MI CHELLE VAN HEMERT BRANTON.

Th i s cas e b eg an as a d is p o s s es s o ry p ro ceed i n g i n m ag i s trat e co u rt . Aft er t h e

m ag i s t rat e co u rt i s s u ed a ju d g m en t i n fa v o r o f t h e p l ai n t i ff M i ch el l e Van Hem ert
Bran t o n, t h e d efen d an t Jen n a W h i t l o ck ap p eal ed t o s u p eri o r co u r t

. « v 2 6 -7 , 9 » Th e

s u p eri o r co u rt al s o is s u ed a ju d g m en t i n fav or o f t h e p l ai n t iff, an d W h i t l o ck fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap p eal .« V2 1 , 5 8 » W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n.

“ [A] p p eal s fro m d eci s i o n s o f th e s up eri o r co urt s rev iewi n g d eci s io n s o f l o wer

co u rt s b y cert i o rari o r d e n o v o p ro ceed i n g s s h al l b e by ap p l i cat i on fo r d i s cret i o n ary
ap p eal .” Bu l l o ck v. S

a n d
, 2 6 0 G a. Ap p

. 87 4
, 8 7 5 (5 8 1 SE2 d 3 33 ) (2 0 03 ); s ee al s o OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 ), (b ). Becau s e W h it l o ck d i d n o t fi l e an ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary

rev i ew, we l ack ju ri s di ct i o n , an d t h i s ap peal i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. January 10, 2022

01/10/2022
#### Ex parte HENLEY.

No. 24797.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1950.

*811John W. Laird, Austin, C. W. Falvey, Houston, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This application was filed in the Criminal District Court No. 2, Harris County, Texas, seeking to secure the release of the petitioner John Henley from confinement in the State Penitentiary. The court heard the evidence and certified same to this court. It is, therefore, considered by us as if filed originally in this court.

The ground alleged is based upon his contention that he was forced to trial without counsel; that he was incapable of representing himself adequately; that he was taken advantage of in the absence of his counsel under circumstances showing that his trial was in violation of the due process of law. ■

The petition sets out at length the procedure relied on. The Honorable Langs-ton King heard the evidence on the issues thus raised and certified the same to this court for action. From the evidence found in the record there was quite a controverted issue as to whether or not appellant was represented by counsel. Honorable Sam Hill, an attorney, who filed a motion for a new trial and appealed the case to this court, as shown in Henly v. State, 36 S.W.2d 1018, was called as a witness. He recognized his handwriting on the pleadings, but had -no personal recollection of what occurred. The-prosecuting witness in the original trial testified at this hearing that a heavy-set man sat by appellant while he was on trial and that he stood before the jury, after the evidence was in, and talked in favpr of Henley.

As an aggravating circumstance the petition alleges that he had employed counsel through a bondsman but did not know the name of the attorney. He says that when his case was called for trial the attorney failed to appear and that he filed a motion fd-r a continuance until he could procure the services of an attorney. Doc- - umentary evidence' introduced fails to indicate that such a • motion was filed. It was not alleged as a ground for a 'new trial. Evidence which we consider conclusive. on the issue as to whether or not he was represented by an attorney is found in the court’s judgment dated October 9, 1930, which reads as follows: “This day this cause was called for trial, and the State appeared by her District Attorney, and the Defendant John Henly appeared in person and by Counsel, and both' parties announced ready for trial.”

The question attempted to be raised at this time could have been presented on appeal but it was not. In consequence of the foregoing it is our conclusion that the evidence fails to sustain the. allegation. By this we do not mean to indicate that the allegations, within themselves, are sufficient, if proven, to warrant an order releasing relator from custody. Since the grounds alleged were not proven it is not necessary to discuss the question of law. . .

The application for writ of habeas corpus is refused.
APRIL TERM, 1772.

#### Upton Scott *against*Watts, Sheriff of St. Mary’s County.

IN this case, the defendant being sheriff of *St. Mary’s*County, had taken *Thomas Key*on a writ returnable to *September*term, 1771, and not having brought in the body, was amerced debt and costs *nisi*the second day of this Court. After *September*term, and before April, *Key*died j and

*T.*Stone, on behalf of the defendant,

moved to stay any proceedings on the amerciament.

He argued, that the plaintiff’s interest commenced on the amerciament when final. That amerciaments were laid by the Court for a contempt of their process, and the Court would not let the defendant suffer when by the act of God it was impossible to have the body here at the day. That the party could not be brought into Court on the return day of the writ because he was ill, which fact the defendant %vas ready to prove by affidavit. He supposed he had been brought in, committed, and had died, no action would lie against the sheriff. Or that a bail-bond had been given, and the plaintiff had taken an assignment of it, and had put the bond in suit; in that case, if *Key*had died before judgment, the Court would have stayed the proceedings against the bail. 1 Barnes, 48. 63. And contended that the sheriff ought not to be in a worse situation.

*Jenings,*contra.

The amerciament is laid for the former contempt in not having the party here at the first term, and not this. The act of Assembly gives the plaintiff an interest in the amerciaments. If the person named in the writ be sick, the sheriff should have returned him *459
      *languidum.*The sheriff is a mere ministerial officer, whom, the plaintiff is obliged to trust, and he ought not to be allowed to exercise his own discretion. If the sheriff had brought up the body, he might have given bond and security, or might have paid the money. The cases in *Barnes*are to be understood to apply where the party taken dies before there is any possibility of a judgment; but here he might have confessed judgment at the first Court.

*The Court*unanimously ordered the amerciament to be Stayed, saying they would give the sheriff all the indulgence in their power, and that the amerciament being a cpntempt of their process, was within their power.
ELITE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following documents of our
report dated July 7, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of
Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Subsidiaries (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to
uncertainty about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern),
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for
the year ended March 31, 2010.





Registration
Statement No. 333-163907 on Form S-8 dated December 22, 2009


Registration
Statement No. 333-132140 on From S-8 dated March 1, 2006


Registration
Statement No. 333-118524 on From S-8 dated August 24, 2004








/S/
Demetrius & Company, L.L.C.





Wayne,
New Jersey


July 7,
2010
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 **ESSEX
        PORTFOLIO, L.P.**
 **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**
 
 
 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), I, Michael T.
        Dance,
        hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form
        10-K
        for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”) of Essex Portfolio, L.P.
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
        of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and information contained
        in
        the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of Essex Portfolio, L.P. at the dates of and for
        the
        periods presented.
  
 Date:
                  March 1, 2007
              /s/
                  Michael T. DanceMichael
                  T. DanceChief
                  Financial Officer, Executive Vice President,Essex
                  Property Trust, Inc., general partner ofEssex
                  Portfolio, L.P.
#### The National City Bank of Cleveland, Successor Trustee, Appellant, *v.*The Guardian Trust Co. of Cleveland et al., Appellees. (Two cases.)

(Nos. 27980 and 27981

Decided July 24, 1940.)

*282*Messrs. Mooney, Hahn, Looser, Keough & Freedheim,*for appellant.

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. A. O. Husband, Messrs. Carr & Hanna*and *Mr. Normcm L. Dungan,*for appellees.

By the Court.

The question presented is whether the Superintendent of Banks can be compelled, by an action for an equitable accounting, to account to a successor trustee for the acts of a trust company which is in his charge for purposes of liquidation.

The office of Superintendent of Banks is of statutory creation and the powers and duties of the incumbent thereof must likewise be statutory or they do not exist. *Sullivan*v. *Kuolt, Commr. of Banking,*156 Wis., 72, 145 N. W., 210.

Section 710-89 *et seq.,*General Code, ^prescribe the procedure for the adjustment of claims of creditors *283and for the liquidation of banks by the Superintendent of Banks. There is no authority in our statutes for the Superintendent of Banks, as liquidator, to assume the office of trustee, or to account for the acts of the insolvent trustee. He does not become the *alter ego*of the banking institution. He assumes none of the functions, performs none of the duties, and exercises none of the powers of the bank as a trustee of the trusts which the institution was handling. On the contrary, with respect to the corpus of the trusts handled by such institution, the Superintendent of Banks is merely a custodian, pending the appointment of a successor trustee.

Upon insolvency of a banking and trust company and the appointment of the Superintendent of Banks as liquidator thereof, the fiduciary office of trustee of express trusts does not descend upon the liquidator, but becomes and remains vacant until a successor trustee is duly appointed and qualified. See *In re Strasser,*220 Ia., 194, 262 N. W., 137, 102 A. L. R., 117; *Pouncey*v. *Fidelity Natl. Bank & Trust Co.,*85 F. (2d), 486; *Young, Commr.,*v. *Bankers’ Trust Co.’s Recr.,*250 Ky., 1, 61 S. W. (2d), 904; and *Sullivan*v. *Kuolt, Commr. of Banking, supra.*

As to cause No. 27980, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas sustaining the demurrer was proper, as was likewise the action of the Court of Common Pleas in case No. 27981 in striking out the allegations of the petition, upon which an action for ^accounting was based.

The claim filed with the Superintendent of Banks in case No. 27981, based upon the loss sustained from the purchase of the participation certificates, is not in issue here. Consequently, we do not pass upon that point in this opinion.

*284The judgment of the Court of Appeals in each case is therefore affirmed.

*Judgments affirmed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Williams, J., dissents.

Matthias, J., not participating.