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

No. 20100.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

*147Wilkinson & Wilkins.on, of Mount Vernon, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., 'of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possession of whisky in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $100.

Officers went to a filling station owned by appellant’s son and searched for intoxicating liquor. Appellant was the only person present at the station. The officers found two and one-half pints of whisky back of a counter in the station.

Appellant testified as follows: “I am the defendant in this case and heard the testimony of Mr. V. L. Delaney. The premises that he searched belonged to my son, J. N. Ezell. The pint bottle that he found about half full of whisky was mine. Me and a negro had been fishing and drank about half of a pint and when we got back I set the bottle where Mr. Delaney found it. I know nothing about the two full pints that he found with unbroken seals. They did not belong to me and I did not know they were there until he found them. They were not mine and I know nothing about them.”

The court failed to submit an instruction covering appellant’s defense that he had no knowledge that two pints of the whisky were in the station and was not in possession of same. Appellant excepted to the charge for the failure to submit such issue, and presented a correct requested instruction affirmatively presenting his defense. There was no proof before the jury that appellant had sold any of said whisky or offered to sell same. If the jury had believed that appellant was in possession of only the half pint of the whisky found by the officers and was exercising no care, custody or control over the two full pints it would have been their duty to have returned a verdict of not guilty. In short, the statutory provision relative to possession of more than a quart of whisky in a dry area being prima facie evidence of possession for the purpose of sale would not have been applicable. It would follow that if appellant did not own the two pints of whisky in question and exercised no care, custody or control over them, he was entitled to an acquittal. Hence the requested instruction should have been read to the jury.

In view of another trial, it is suggested that appellant’s requested charges two and three, as shown in the transcript, should also be read to the jury.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          43,173
<SECURITIES>                                    10,843
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,729
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,502
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,391
<PP&E>                                           5,668
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  76,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,054
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    76,574
<SALES>                                          6,313
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,313
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,048
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    79
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    171
<INCOME-TAX>                                        70
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                101
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       101
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        


</TABLE>
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2014-0730

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM206AD

90-25-012, I3 --- 10/03/01

90-25-012, I4 --- 12/19/01

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of ClinTrials Research Inc. of our report dated January 31, 1997,
except for Note 12, as to which the date is March 11, 1997, included in the
1996 Annual Report to Shareholders of ClinTrial Research Inc.

        Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of ClinTrials
Research Inc. listed in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits.  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.

                                                Ernst & Young LLP
March 25, 1997
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 27533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11314]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7877]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Ends of the Earth: Land Art to 1974''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Ends of the Earth: Land Art to 1974'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a 
loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine 
that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of 
Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, CA, from on or about May 27, 2012, until 
on or about September 3, 2012; and at possible additional exhibitions 
or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-11314 Filed 5-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Thu Jul 16 09:34:48 EDT 2015

Yuhas.Darlene@epamail.epa.gov

FW: EPA Proposed Renewable Fuel Standards 2014, 2015, 2016

To: CMS.OEX@epamail.epa.gov; Gaines.Cynthia@epamail.epa.gov

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Vanessa Bayless [mailto:commissioners@co.lawrence.pa.us]

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 9:12 AM

To: Mccarthy, Gina; dmcdonough@who.eop.gov; bdeese@who.eop.gov

Cc: rjw.inc@comcast.net; 'Dan Vogler'

Subject: EPA Proposed Renewable Fuel Standards 2014, 2015, 2016

Good Morning:

Please find attached a letter from Lawrence County Commissioner Dan Vogler regarding the EPA proposed Renewal Fuel Standards

for 2014, 2015, 2016. Upon review, if you have any questions, please give us a call. Thank you. 

Vanessa Bayless

Administrative Assistant

Lawrence County Commissioners' Office

Lawrence County Government Center

430 Court Street

New Castle, PA 16101

724.656.2120 Phone

724.652.9646 Fax

commissioners@co.lawrence.pa.us

www.co.lawrence.pa.us

From:officecopier@co.lawrence.pa.us [mailto:officecopier@co.lawrence.pa.us]

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 4:45 AM

To: commissioners@co.lawrence.pa.us

Subject: Message from KMBT_363 Commissioners
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 231 (Thursday, November 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30488]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC01-28-000]


Georgia Power Company; Notice of Filing

November 24, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Georgia Power Company 
(Georgia Power) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, (Commission) an Application Pursuant to Section 203 of the 
Federal Power Act for Authorization to Exchange Transmission 
Facilities.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
and protests should be filed on or before December 8, 2000. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission to determine 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. This filing may 
also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may 
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30488 Filed 11-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Petitioner

 v.

VINCENT FULLER,

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 42 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 337

To designate the month of September 1994 as ‘‘National Sewing Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 15, 1994

Mr. PETRI introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To designate the month of September 1994 as ‘‘National

Sewing Month’’.

Whereas the sewing industry annually honors the approximately 30,000,000 people who sew at home;

Whereas the home sewing industry generates over

$3,500,000,000 annually for the economy of the United

States; and

Whereas innumerable careers in fashion, retail merchandising, design, pattern making, and textiles have had their

beginnings in the home and in elementary school home

economics classes: Now, therefore, be it
2

•HJ 337 IH

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the month of September 1994 is hereby designated

4 as ‘‘National Sewing Month’’. The President is authorized

5 and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the

6 people of the United States to observe this month with

7 the appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Riginio, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a *694judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered May 4, 1989, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions on appeal, we find that, under the circumstances herein, it was not incumbent upon the court to conduct further inquiries into the defendant’s competence to plead guilty. The defendant had been found competent to stand trial. Moreover, prior to commencing plea negotiations, the defense counsel had a psychiatric examination of the defendant conducted and, based on this examination, had decided not to interpose the defense of lack of criminal responsibility. Also, the defendant’s determination to plead guilty to manslaughter was made only after consultation with his attorney. Upon this state of facts and our review of the plea proceedings, we are satisfied that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary, that the allocution was factually sufficient *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666), and that there was no need for the court to make any further inquiries into the defendant’s mental competence *(cf., Matusiak v Kelly, 786*F2d 536, *cert dismissed*479 US 805). Accordingly, there is no basis for reversing the defendant’s conviction and vacating his plea. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11:00 a.m., Friday, December 1, 2000.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 00-30855  Filed 11-30-00; 10:46 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
H. Con. Res. 239 Agreed to March 5, 2010

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR PRESENTATION OF 

CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO WOMEN AIRFORCE 

SERVICE PILOTS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor 

Center is authorized to be used for a ceremony on March 10, 

2010, to present the Congressional Gold Medal to the Women 

Airforce Service Pilots. 

(b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the conduct of 

the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in 

accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the 

Architect of the Capitol. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased the week prior to March 26, 2019 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### A

- 17

- 1171 State v. Perry

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
#### MATTHEWS v. WILSON.

No. 3690.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

June 5, 1940.

Rehearing Denied June 12, 1940.

Will R. Saunders, of Dallas, for appellant.

Kennemer & Armstrong, of Dallas, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, in which the appellant, who was defendant in the court below, complains of the action of the trial court in overruling his plea of privilege. The suit was on two promissory notes aggregating $850, and for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage lien on fifty head of cattle of the alleged value of $2,000. The notes were payable in Dallas County. The defendant filed a plea of non est factum, among other defenses. The trial of the plea of privilege was to a jury. The plaintiff took the stand and testified to the due execution of the notes and mortgage by the defendant and they were introduced in evidence. Defendant did not testify or offer any evidence in rebuttal to plaintiff’s case. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court entered judgment overruling the plea of privilege without submitting any issues to the jury.

The appellant’s contention here is simply to the effect that the pleading and evidence raised an issue of fact for the jury as to whether or not he signed the notes and mortgage. It is contended that plaintiff gave certain testimony which he contradicted on cross-examination; that the handwriting of the signatures on the two notes differs in certain respects, and that since the only testimony tending to establish due execution of the qotes and mortgage by the defendant came from the plaintiff, an interested witness, the issue *748was not conclusively established, but should have been submitted to the jury.

We overrule the assignments. We think the minor discrepancies were not of a nature to discredit the plaintiff’s testimony. The notes and mortgage were introduced in evidence. The signatures are not before us for examination and presumably the trial court concluded that the alleged differences were not such as to cast doubt on the genuineness of the signatures. The general rule to the effect that the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness does not conclusively establish a fact is subject to certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is that where the testimony of such witness is such that it might readily be discredited if it were not true, and the adverse party offers no disparaging proof, it may be accepted as conclusively establishing the fact. Luling Oil & Gas Company v. Edwards, Tex.Civ.App., 32 S.W.2d 921; Taylor-Link Oil Company v. Anderson, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 499. The defendant could have taken the stand and denied the execution of the notes and mortgage if he had cared to do so. Since he did not elect to do that, we think the trial court properly held that there was no issue to- go to the jury.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Office of the Secretary

The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted to the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) for clearance in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections recently submitted to OMB.

1. National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health Program Quantitative Evaluation Survey—NEW—The Office on Women's Health is proposing a survey of patients receiving services at the fifteen National Center of Excellence (CoE) in Women's Health clinical care centers. This survey will provide an assessment of the level of patient satisfaction and service utilization at the CoEs for comparison to other data on women's health service utilization. 

*Respondents:*                    Individuals.                

*Number of Respondents:*                    3,000.                

*Burden per Response:*                    20 minutes.                

*Total Burden:*                    1,000 hours.                

*OMB Desk Officer:*                    Allison Eydt.                

Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, DC 20201. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

Dated: November 27, 2000.

Dennis P. Williams,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget.

[FR Doc. 00-30964  Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-33-M