alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, Inc., v. SMITH, Collector of Internal Revenue.

No. 7187.

0ircuit Oour(. of A j seventh Circuit,

June 20, 1940.

Estal G. Bielby, of Lawrenceburg, Ind., and Alfred D. Van Burén, of New York City, for appellant.

Val Nolan, U. S: Atty., and B. Howard Caughran, both of Indianapolis, Ind., Julian D. Simpson, Dept, of Justice, of Washington, D. G, and Elbert II. Loyd, *358U, S. Treasury Dept., of Chicago, 111., for appellee.

"'Before EVANS and MAJOR, Circuit Judges, and WILKERSON, District Judge.

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

■ Plaintiff makes the following contentions: The tax on its distilled spirits does not attach until they are withdrawn. The loss of the spirits in question did not constitute such a withdrawal or removal as to warrant the assessment of a tax. In other words, losses occurring during operation and production in the distillery are to be distinguished from losses in warehouse after the spirits have been withdrawn from the’ cisterns, and entered the storage rooms or warehouse. A loss of spirits occurring during production in a distillery due to negligence does not justify or warrant the collection of the taxes provided it is shown, as here, that 80% of the productive capacity of the distillery has been otherwise produced and accounted for.

Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the loss of the spirits constituted such a withdrawal or removal as to require assessment and collection of the tax. The loss occurred after the spirits had been produced and though distinguishable from a loss in a warehouse, the distiller is nevertheless ' liable, for a tax thereon. Such a tax, having been lawfully assessed, could only be abated upon plaintiff’s showing facts bringing itself within the express authorization of remedial statutes.

On the sharply controverted issue, the court’s sixth finding becomes all important. “6. That said loss or destruction of said 3,051 proof gallons of spirits occurred in Plaintiff’s distillery cistern room after the production or distillation of said spirits had been completed, and after the same had entered said cistern room but before the time when same should have been drawn off by the storekeeper-gauger and placed in the internal revenue bonded warehouse provided by law.”

This finding, if sustained by the evidence, is determinative.

The evidence, we think, supports the finding that the production and distillation of the spirits had been completed before they were lost.

While there may be some question as to just when production or distillation of spirits is completed, the decisions in the cases of United States v. Witten, 143 U.S. 76, 79, 12 S.Ct. 372, 36 L.Ed. 81; United States F. & G. Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 201 F. 91; United States v. Guest, 4 Cir., 143 F. 456, convince us that distillation was complete in the instant case and the tax liability attached.

*359The loss was one for which plaintiff must be held responsible. United States v. Sisk, 176 F. 885; United States v. Cole, D.C., 134 F. 697; Hart v. United States, 95 U.S. 316, 24 L.Ed. 479.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.27

                               2. AMENDMENT TO THE
               FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (NOV 34)
                                     between
                        Novoste Corporation, Norcross GA
                                       and
             BEBIG Isotopentechnik und Umweltdiagnostik GmbH, Berlin

BACKGROUND

In a previous Amendment to the Framework Agreement and Security Agreement dated
23 July 1998 Novoste and BEBIG agreed to a number of procedures relating to the
return of source trains and the changing of the price formula. The provisions
have in part turned out to be unworkable. Both parties therefore agree to the
following modifications:

1.    Novoste may request from BEBIG, and BEBIG will accept, a final disposal of
      source trains for a flat disposal rate of XXXXX (XXXXX) per seed. BEBIG
      will send them to the "Zentralstelle fur Sammlung radioaktiver Abfalle
      (ZRA)", unless they were manufactured less than 12 months ago. In this
      case, BEBIG may recycle suitable seeds for further use.

2.    If trains for final disposal are received by BEBIG within 18 months from
      their date of manufacturing, as evidenced by the manufacturers
      certificate, then the charges for a second year use of the train (ss. 2,
      Amendment to the Framework Agreement and Security Agreement dated 23 July
      1998) will not apply.

3.    Novoste understands that BEBIG's ability to dispose off old source trains
      is contingent on various regulatory permissions. It explicitly grants
      BEBIG the right to cancel the disposal right or to increase the disposal
      charge if her disposal conditions change.

4.    In order to handle incoming trains and prepare them for disposal, BEBIG
      will need to develop a waste box, a number of tools, and the adequate
      handling processes. Since Novoste does not contribute to the investment,
      it will guarantee to BEBIG a disposal revenue per calendar year of at
      least XXXXX (XXXXX). In cases where the disposal volume is less then XXXXX
      per calendar year, Novoste will pay a the difference.


         Norcross, 2/11/00                                Berlin, 2/10/00
      ------------------------                       ------------------------
            Date/ Place                                     Date/ Place

      /s/ Novoste Corporation                        /s/ BEBIG GmbH
      ------------------------                       ------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidential treatment has been requested for portions of this page of this
exhibit. The copy filed herewith omits the information subject to the
confidentiality request. Omissions are designated as "XXXXX". The portions
omitted have been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to such request for confidential treatment.
NO. 09 -17- 00406

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JULIE FAYE MEAD

Appellant

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

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

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES Appellant, JULIE FAYE MEAD, by and through

h is court

- appointed attorney of record, Thomas J.
Burbank, and files this Motion for Extension of Time to
File Appellant's Brief and would respectfully show unto

the Court as follows:

I.
Appellant's Brief was due to be filed on or before
January 8 , 2018. Due to heavy court hearings , Counsel
overlooked such deadline. In addition, counsel has not
had adequate time to review transcripts and prepare said ACCEPTED 09-17-00406 NINTH COURT OF APPEALS BEAUMONT, TEXAS 1/8/2018 9:42 AM CAROL ANNE HARLEY

CLERKbri ef

.

II.

The Appellant's attorney respectfully requests a 30
day extension of time from the date of this Motion in
which to file a brief on behalf of Appellant. This
extension would render the Appellant's brief to be due on

or before February 8 , 2018

.

III.
This request for extension is made not for purposes
of delay, but so that justice may be done.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant requests
that his Motion for Extension requesting an additional
period from the date of this Motion in which to f ile the
Appellant's brief in this matter be granted, that said
Appellant's brief be due on or before January 11 , 201 8 , and for such other and further relief to which Appellant
may be entitled, whether in law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

By: / s/ T homas J. BurbankThomas J. Burbank 505 West Lucas Beaumont, TX 77706 409/895

- 0200 FAX 409/895

- 0080 State Bar No. 03355340 burbank_hamm@yahoo.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and for egoing Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief has been e - filed and noticed to all interested parties on this the 8 th day of January , 201 8

.
/s/ T homas J. Burbank Tho m as J. Burbank
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1905 

To increase the number of States that may conduct Medicaid demonstration 

programs to improve access to community mental health services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 2, 2017 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To increase the number of States that may conduct Medicaid 

demonstration programs to improve access to community 

mental health services. 

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 ‘‘Excellence in Mental 

5 Health and Addiction Treatment Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEM7 ONSTRATION PROGRAM. 

8 Section 223(d) of the Protecting Access to Medicare 

9 Act of 2014 (42 U.S.C. 1396a note) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (3)— 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1905 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘Not more than’’ and in2 serting ‘‘Subject to paragraph (8), not more 

3 than’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘2-year’’ and inserting ‘‘3- 

5 year’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

7 paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(8) ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.—In addition to 

9 the 8 States selected under paragraph (1), the Sec10 retary shall select 11 States (which shall not include 

11 any States selected under paragraph (1)) to partici12 pate in 2-year demonstration programs that meet 

13 the requirements of this subsection and represent a 

14 diverse selection of geographic areas, including rural 

15 and underserved areas.’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael W. Trudnak, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Guardian Technologies International, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: August 31, 2006

Signed:

/s/Michael W. Trudnak

Name: Michael W. Trudnak

Title: Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### LYLE v. LYLE.

No. 5638.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Texarkana.

June 20, 1940.

Tom N. Cope and Carney & Carney, all of Atlanta, for appellant.

Robert F. Salmon, of Linden, and Cecil R. Glass, of Marlin, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.

This suit was filed by appellee, Allie Lyle, praying for a divorce against her husband, E. L. Lyle, on ground of cruel treatment and in which suit she asked for the care and custody of their minor children, Mildred, a girl age nine, Loyd, a boy age seven, and Margie Ann, a girl age three. The defendant answered, and by cross-action asked that the decree of divorce be granted to him and that he be given the care and custody of the children. Trial of the cause was to the court without a jury. Among other facts, the court found that plaintiff was entitled to the divorce, and that: “ * * * the Court having heard the evidence as to surroundings and circumstances of each of such children and the financial circumstances, character, and fitness of their parents and their ability to contribute to the support of such children, and being of the opinion that the best interest of the said children will be served, if Mildred Lyle, the oldest child, be placed in the custody of E. L. Lyle, the Defendant, and that the other two children, namely, Loyd Lyle, a boy, and Margie Ann Lyle, the baby girl, be placed in the custody of Mrs. Allie Lyle,” * * *

Whereupon the court decreed that the marriage relationship existing between plaintiff and defendant be dissolved, and “That the present care, custody and control of Mildred Lyle, the oldest child of the plaintiff and the defendant, be granted to the defendant, E. L. Lyle; and that the present care, custody and control of the other two children, Loyd, a boy, and Margie Ann, a girl, be granted to the plaintiff, Mrs. Allie Lyle, each parent to have the right of reasonable visitation of said children.”

The defendant, E. L. Lyle, has appealed.

*961Appellant contends: (1) That the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment awarding the divorce in favor of appellee; and (2) that the evidence is sufficient to have sustained a judgment for divorce in favor of appellant; and (3) that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment awarding the present care and custody of the two younger children to the mother. We have carefully read the statement of facts and are unable to agree with appellant’s contention. Awarding the custody of a child is a matter largely addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless it is so contrary to the great preponderance of the evidence as to show an abuse of discretion. Epstein v. Epstein, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 894.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

This certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely in connection with Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, Failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports, and
is not being filed as part of MBNA Corporations Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003
accompanying this certification.

I, Vernon H.C. Wright, Chief Financial Officer of MBNA Corporation, certify that MBNA Corporations Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MBNA Corporation.

|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 15, 2004 |  | /s/ Vernon H.C. Wright 
|                     |  |                        
|                     |  | Vernon H.C. Wright     
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0205

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

PABLO ANTONIO VILLALOBOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 21, 2024, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 8 2024

01/08/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0205
#### P. J. KIMBALL, alias R. E. Jackman, appellant, v. STATE of Texas, appellee.

No. 15880.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1933.

Otis Rogers, of Port Worth, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for forgery; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bill of exception. The indictment, the charge of the court, the judgment and sentence being- regular, the judgment will be affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


I, David Lieberman, Chief Accounting Officer ofWorld Health Energy Holdings, Inc.,(the "Company"), hereby 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  Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.
 
  /s/David LiebermanDavid LiebermanChief Accounting Officer
 Date: November 15, 2010





_______________
 
 This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 10.51**

 

**AMENDMENT TO SALES AGREEMENT**

 

THIS AMENDMENT TO SALES AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the 5th day of May, 2004, by and between PRENTISS PROPERTIES TRUST (the “Company”) and BRINSON PATRICK SECURITIES CORPORATION (the “SalesManager”), as follows: 

 

**RECITALS:**

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Sales Manager have entered into a SalesAgreement dated as of June 10, 2002 (as the “Agreement”); and 

 

WHEREAS, due to the extent and volume of business conducted between the Company and the Sales Manager, the parties desire to amend the Agreement so as to modify the compensation of the Sales Manager thereunder. 

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements hereincontained, intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

SECTION 1. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning attributed to them in the Agreement. 

 

SECTION 2. Amendment to Section 2.1(c) of the Agreement. The first sentence of Section 2.1(c) of the Agreement ishereby amended and restated as follows: 

 

The compensation tothe Sales Manager for sales of Shares shall be at a fixed commission rate of: (i) 2.00% of the gross sales price per share for the Shares sold under this Agreement until 2,000,000 Shares have been sold hereunder; and (ii) thereafter, 1.5% of thegross sales price per share for the Shares sold under this Agreement. 

 

SECTION 3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and both of which shall constitute a single agreement. 

 

SECTION 4. Binding Effect. Except as expressly amended hereby, theAgreement shall continue to be and shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. Any reference to the “Agreement” or the “Sales Agreement” in the Agreement shall be deemed to be a reference to the Agreementas amended hereby. 

 

SECTION 5. Governing Law. ThisAmendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of New York. 

 

[Signature Page Follows] 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first abovewritten. 

 

PRENTISS PROPERTIES TRUST
By: /s/ Michael A. Ernst    
Name: Michael A. Ernst

Title: Executive Vice President & CFO

BRINSON PATRICK SECURITIES CORPORATION
By: /s/ Todd Wyche    
Name: Todd Wyche

Title: Managing Director

 

2
Exhibit
      23.1





CONSENT
      OF GEOLOGICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC





**CONSENT
      OF GEOLOGICAL SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC**









We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference of any reports concerning reserves
      and
      other analyses performed by us in our capacity as an independent consultant
      to
      USCorp (the “Company”), which are set forth in the Company’s Annual Report on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006 and any registration
      statements or prospectuses to be filed in connection with the sale or resale
      from time to time of securities of the Company, or amendments or supplements
      thereto; and in any amendment to any registration statements or prospectuses.





We
      also
      consent to the reference to us under the headings “Consultants” and “Experts” in
      any of the aforementioned documents.




GEOLOGICAL
                SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC/S/
              Robert
              CameronName:
                Robert Cameron
              Title:
                President
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
#### LEADON et al. v. STATE.

No. 21260.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 23, 1940.

H. H. Wellborn, of Henderson, for appellants. '

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This case is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts. Furthermore, the transcript contains no notice of appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.