alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### F. E. Thomas, Appellee, v. B. Arie, Appellant.

Intoxicating Liquors: sale erom separate rooms. A liquor dealer having paid but one tax under the mulct law has no right to keep íor sale and sell intoxicating liqnors from two wholly separate and independent rooms in the same building.

*Appeal from Boone District Count.*— Hour. J. R. Whitaker, J udge.

Monday, February 1, 1904.

Action in equity for an injunction to restrain the defendant from maintaining an intoxicating liquor nuisance. Upon final bearing there was a decree granting perpetual injunction, with costs. Defendant appeals.

AeeirMed.

*Stevens & Fry*for appellant.

*Charles Whitaher*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Defendant is the owner of a building situated on the west twenty-five feet of lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, in block 74, in Boone. Tbe building faces south on Eighth street, and extends north one hundred feet on Allen street. The ground floor of the building is divided into two rooms, a partition extending across about midway of the building north and south. The front or south room is occupied by defendant as a retail liquor saloon, the only entrance thereto being by a doo,r at the corner. The only means of entrance into the rear room is through a door opening into the same from Allen street. Such rear room is used and occupied by defendant as a storage room for beer kept by him for sale at wholesale. Deliveries therefrom are made from time to. time as orders are received therefor. It is conceded that the mulct tax law is in force in Boone, and defendant has a *539license to sell intoxicating liquors according to law “on the west 25 feet of lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, block 74.” The only question presented for our determination is whether a person, having paid but one tax and having but one license, may keep for sale and sell intoxicating liquors in two different and wholly separate rooms in the same building. We are clearly of the opinion that such question must be answered in the negative. To hold otherwise would certainly violate not only the spirit of the law, but, we think, the letter of the law. Section 2432 of the Code provides that “every person * **** maintaining a place'where intoxicating liquors are sold or kept with intent to sell shall pay an annual tax,” etc. It must be manifest, from our statement of the facts, that the defendant is maintaining two places, each independent of the other in every material sense necessary to be considered. The mere fact that by his license he is authorized to carry on business in the building mentioned • cannot be construed, to confer the right on defendant to cut such building up into separate rooms, the number to be limited only by the capacity of the building or the extent of the premises, and in each maintain an independent place for the sale of liquors.

The decree meets with our approval, and it is AKFiRMED.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 03-1389

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Jose Luis Reyes-Contreras,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

 [PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: October 23, 2003

 Filed: November 7, 2003

________________

Before BYE, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Jose Luis Reyes-Contreras pleaded guilty

to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams

of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).

He acknowledged that by pleading guilty, he was subjecting himself to a statutory

minimum penalty of ten years in prison and five years of supervised release.
1

 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

2

At sentencing, the district court1 imposed the statutory minimum sentence: a

ten-year prison term and a five-year term of supervised release. Reyes-Contreras

subsequently moved to withdraw his guilty plea, have new counsel appointed, and

have a new sentencing hearing conducted. The district court denied his motion.

Reyes-Contreras appeals.

 Reyes-Contreras cannot challenge his conviction or sentence on appeal

because he received precisely what he bargained for in the plea agreement. See

United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995). The district court

properly denied Reyes-Contreras's motion to withdraw his plea because it was filed

after sentence was imposed. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e) (2002).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
#### Marki, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*April 9*

May *5, 1942.*

For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by *Aschenbrenner & Petersen*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *S. A. Aschen-brenner.*

For the defendant in error there was a brief by the *Attorney General, Herbert J. Steffes,*district attorney of Milwaukee *489county, and *Andrew W. Brunhart,*assistant district attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. Brunhart.*

Fowler, J.

The defendant was charged with rape of a woman forty-five years old. The only error assigned is that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant admitted the commission of the act of intercourse charged, but claimed that the prosecutrix consented thereto. The trial was to the court, without a jury. We see no occasion to detail the story of the prosecutrix. We will only say that if the trial judge believed the story, and he manifestly did, the conviction is amply supported, this notwithstanding that the defendant’s reputation previous to the act charged was good and that of the prosecutrix as to improper conduct with men was somewhat impeached, although it rested on mere rumor rather than any adequate cause or substantial basis.

The woman’s condition, as testified to by her daughter, by a physician, who examined her the next day at the procurement of the public authorities, and by a policeman who saw her in a tavern from which she called to the police station immediately after being left by defendant near her daughter’s home where she lived and reported the commission of the alleged crime, corroborates the story of the prosecutrix. Her condition as described by these witnesses was utterly inconsistent with the defendant’s claim of her consent to the admitted act.

Counsel rely on *State v.*Hoffman, 228 Wis. 235, 280 N. W. 357, in support of their contention.. While the two cases have one thing in common — that each prosecutrix claimed to have yielded because of fear of death induced by threats of the assailant- — they are widely different in that in the instant case the act involved was committed immediately following the threat and in a situation likely to induce fear of immediate fulfilment, in the other the circumstances were not such as to make fulfilment either imminent or likely, and the act *490charged followed after a considerable lapse of time and after voluntary participation by the prosecutrix in acts just short of the penetration essential to the completed act.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the municipal court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3276 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3276

    To make technical corrections to the College Scholarship Fraud 
    Prevention Act of 2000 and certain amendments made by that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           December 11 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

  Mr. Abraham (for himself and Mr. Feingold) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To make technical corrections to the College Scholarship Fraud 
    Prevention Act of 2000 and certain amendments made by that Act.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP FRAUD 
              PREVENTION ACT OF 2000.

    (a) Sentencing Enhancement Guidelines.--Section 3 of the College 
Scholarship Fraud Prevention Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-420) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``obtaining or providing of'' and inserting 
        ``the obtaining of, the offering of assistance in obtaining''; 
        and
            (2) by striking ``base offense level for 
        misrepresentation'' and inserting ``enhanced penalties provided 
        for in the Federal sentencing guidelines for an offense 
        involving fraud or misrepresentation''.
    (b) Limitation on Exempt Property.--Section 522(c)(4) of title 11, 
United States Code, as added by section 4 of the College Scholarship 
Fraud Prevention Act of 2000, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``in the obtaining or providing of'' and 
        inserting ``or misrepresentation in the providing of, the 
        offering of assistance in obtaining, or the furnishing of 
        information to a consumer on,''; and
            (2) by striking ``(20 U.S.C. 1001)''.
    (c) Effective Date; Application of Amendments.--
            (1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        this section and the amendments made by this section shall take 
        effect on November 1, 2000.
            (2) Application of section 552(c)(4) of title 11, united 
        states code.--Section 522(c)(4) of title 11, United States 
        Code, as added by section 4 of the College Scholarship Fraud 
        Prevention Act of 2000 and as amended by subsection (b) of this 
        section, shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under 
        title 11, United States Code, on or after November 1, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 24, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 490 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-101, K2025-99.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24629 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                       Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                                               235,618
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,711,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                         502,700
<INVENTORY>                                          241,367
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     4,222,520
<PP&E>                                               2,566,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                       679,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       24,290,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                11,469,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             18,568
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           8,326,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         24,290,658
<SALES>                                              3,688,153
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     3,688,153
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2,855,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     2,793,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (322,753)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (2,274,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (2,274,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (2,274,915)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (1.23)
        

<PAGE>

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23- 0354 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LEROY MICHAEL CHARLES,

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 April 12 , 2024 within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 6 2024

03/06/2024
Case Number: DA 23-0354
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report ofSterling Oil and Gas Company(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period end ofMay 31, 2008as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I,Timothy Barritt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 15th day of July, 2008.                                                                                                                   
|   

TIMOTHY BARRITTTimothy BarrittPresident and Chief Executive Officer





















---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15744

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:11-cr-00008-WKW-CSC-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY DARELL TALLIE, 

a.k.a. Pokie, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Alabama

________________________

(December 5, 2016)

Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15744 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Tilden Haywood, appointed counsel for Anthony Tallie in this appeal from 

the denial of Tallie’s construed motion for a sentence reduction under 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and the denial of Tallie’s motion is AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-15744 Date Filed: 12/05/2016 Page: 2 of 2
# Euroopa Liidu C 178/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0898 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 178 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 59. köide18. mai 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0898

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 178

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

59. köide18. mai 2016

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Parandused |
| 2016/C 178/01 | Nõukogu esimese lugemise seisukoha (EL) nr 1/2016 (eesmärgiga võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus, mis käsitleb Euroopa Liidu Raudteeametit ja millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EÜ) nr 881/2004) parandus – Nõukogu poolt vastu võetud 10. detsembril 2015( ELT C 56, 12.2.2016 ) | 1 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

Parandused

2016/C 178/01

Nõukogu esimese lugemise seisukoha (EL) nr 1/2016 (eesmärgiga võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus, mis käsitleb Euroopa Liidu Raudteeametit ja millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EÜ) nr 881/2004) parandus – Nõukogu poolt vastu võetud 10. detsembril 2015( ELT C 56, 12.2.2016 )

( ELT C 56, 12.2.2016 )

1

---

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

Parandused

| 18.5.2016 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2016

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 178/1

---

Nõukogu esimese lugemise seisukoha (EL) nr 1/2016 (eesmärgiga võtta vastu Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus, mis käsitleb Euroopa Liidu Raudteeametit ja millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EÜ) nr 881/2004) parandus – Nõukogu poolt vastu võetud 10. detsembril 2015

(
  Euroopa Liidu Teataja C 56, 12. veebruar 2016
  )

(2016/C 178/01)

Leheküljel 39 artikli 65 lõikes 10

asendatakse

„10.   Kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega otsustava nõukogu soovituse põhjal annab Euroopa Parlament kinnituse tegevdirektori tegevusele aasta N eelarve täitmise kohta enne aasta N + 2 30. aprilli.“

järgmisega:

„10.   Kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega otsustava nõukogu soovituse põhjal annab Euroopa Parlament kinnituse tegevdirektori tegevusele aasta N eelarve täitmise kohta enne aasta N + 2 15. maid.“

---
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-15-0150

SAT Date: 1/16/2015

Print Date: 2/3/2015

Related cases: CBI: Yes

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 2

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 12

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: AQUATOX; IRRIT-S,E

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-15-0150

FATE: 

Liquid with MP < -60 °C (M)

log Kow = 4.07 (E) 

S = 24.3 mg/L at 25 °C (E)

VP = 2.41-3 torr at 25 °C (E)

BP = 296 °C (E)

H = 2.56E-7 (E)

log Koc = 2.54 (E)

log Fish BCF = 2.36 (E)

log Fish BAF = 1.18 (E) 
POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk

Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow - moderate

 Health:

 Health Summary: Moderate absorption all routes since PMN 

substance is , expect hydrolysis of both groups. There is concern for skin and eye 

irritation based on 

 Test Data: 

Submitted with (-) Salmonella with and without activation, (-) E. coli with and 

without activation, (-) chromosome aberrations in CHL cells with and without activation. 

Submitted with : Rat oral LD0 > 2000 mg/kg; Rabbit dermal LD0 > 2000 mg/kg; mild 

eye irritant in rabbits; skin irritant in rabbits; Not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs (

Oral developmental toxicity study in rats: no repression of genes that would indicate testicular 

dysgenesis as seen with 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 2.1

daphnid 48-h LC50 3.5

green algal 96-h EC50 1.1

fish _ chronic value 0.103

daphnid _ chronic 

value

1.3

algal _ chronic 

value

0.54

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on ; 

 liquid with mp <10 C (M); log Kow = 4.2 (P), 3.5 (M); S = 84 mg/L at 20 C 

(M); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

10

SARs
SAR Class

Ecotox Category 

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: D. Pagan-Rodriguez
Exhibit 99.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I,  Edward  N. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of FoneFriend, Inc ( the "Company"
), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350,  that:

     The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form 10-QSB of the Company for the three months
ended  December 31, 2003 (the " Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section  13  (a)  or  15  (d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934; and

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

Dated:  February 12, 2004.



                         /S/ Edward N. Jones
                         -------------------
                         Edward N. Jones, Chief Financial Officer
M 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at 

sentencing, and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

X0-4,1n, J. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge 

Washoe County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2