alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1996 AND AS
OF JUNE 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000925664
<NAME> ST. JAMES GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Apr-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 39
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,246
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,806)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   39
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)
        



</TABLE>
#### Estate of Smith : Smith and others, Appellants, vs. Thompson and another, Executors, Respondents.

For the appellants : *George A. Gessner*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *Jeffris, Mo%iat, Oestreich, Wood & Cunningham*of Janesville.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### STATE *v.*MARION ALEXANDER.

It is not sufficient, to constitute the crime of larceny, that the defendant *home the power*to remove the property alleged to have been stolen, there must be *some*asportation thereof.

*{State v. Jones,*65 N. O, Rep. 395; *State v. Butler,*Ibid 309; *State*». *Jackson,*Ibid 305, cited and approved.)

TndxotmeNT for Larorny. tried before Ms Honor, *Cannon, •J,.*at Pali Term, 1875, of tbe Superior Court of Haywood ■county.

The defendant, with one James Alexander, was indicted for the larceny of a hog.

All the facts necessary to an understanding of the case, as decided in this court, are stated in the opinion of Justice Rynum.

There was a verdict of guilty, and judgment, whereupon ■¡the defendant appealed.

.No counsel in this court, for the defendant.

*Attorney General*Hargrove, for the State.

Bynum, J.

The defendant was indicted for stealing a hog running at large in the “range.” The hog was found dead, having been shot. Its ears had been cut off, and one of its hams skinned, but the skin had not been severed from the animal, no part being cut off except the ears. There was no evidence that the hog had been killed elsewhere than where found, or had been removed from the spot where it had been killed. There was evidence that the defendant shot the hog and did the skinning. His Honor charged the jury, that if the defendant shot and skinned the hog, as alleged, and had it under his control, with the intent to steal, there was in law a sufficient asportation, and he was guilty. There is error.

*233To complete the crime of larceny, it is not sufficient that the defendant had the control of the article, that is, had the power to remove it, but there must be an asportation of the thing alleged to have been stolen. It is true, a very slight as-portation will be deemed sufficient, yet there must be some removal to complete the offence. The case here shows that! there was no removal of the hog, but that it remained *in\ situ,*as it had been shot down. In the *State*v. Jones, 65 N. C., 395, it was held that the turning of a barrel of turpentine, which was standing upon its head, over upon its side, with a felonious intent, was not such an asportation as constituted larceny. So in the *State*v. *Butler,*65 N. C., 309, which is a case almost identical with this, it was held, that an indictment at common law, for stealing a cow, is not supported by proof that the cow was shot down and her ears cut off by the defendant with a felonious intent, because there was no aspor-tation of the *cow,*the thing charged to have been stolen. These cases and others of our own, as well as English, are decisive. *State*v. *Jackson,*65 N. C., 305; Roscoe, 570, 2 Bish. Cr. Law, 804; 2 East, P. C., 556.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.
#### NISSEN *v.*TUCKER.

.An order for goods, not accepted, is no payment for property sold ; and tire owner may recover on the common count.

The doctrine of notice lias no application to an order for goods.

This ,was an 'action of assumpsit,, tried before Judge .Saunders, at .the Fall Term,. 1853, 'üf Forsyth Superior -Court.

The plaintiff sold to the defendant a wagon for thirty dollars, receiving an order on one Fries -for goods for that .amount. Fries .-declined accepting the order. The defendant afterwards had a settlement .with Fries, receiving from him the amount in -his- hand's belonging to himself. . The plaintiff declared, specially on the order, and also for, goods .sold and delivered- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, subject .to. the decision of the Court, as to whether the defendant was .entitled ,to notice, the order being for .goods.

No counsel for plaintiff.

Miller, for defendant.

Pearson, J.

We concur with his Honor. The .plaintiff vunder the count for goods sold and delivered, ivas entitled to receiver the price.of his wagon. The order on Fries, .for the amount *in goods,*which was not accepted, was .certainly no payment. The doctrine of notice is taken from the law merchant, and has no application to .an .order for goods. .Such,an order is not negotiable, and does not come within the law merchant, which is strictly confined to bills for money. As the defendant himself afterwards .received from Fries the amount in his hands, ,he has :not ■.•■even a pretence -.for refusing' to pay for the wagon.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN:_____

_ SE01295A10

_________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J UL I O G AR C I A- E QU I HU A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50453 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 9 -cr-0 1 2 3 8 -JM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e f f r e y T . M i l l e r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jul i o G ar ci a- E qu i hu a app ea l s f rom the 72 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o ra tte m p te d e n trya f

te rd e p o rta tio n , in v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U. S . C . § 1 3 2 6 . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a f f i rm. 

# FI LED FEB 22 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 50453 2 G ar ci a- E qu i hu a c on t ends thatthe di stri ctcourtprocedural l y e rr ed at se nt enci ng by fa i l i ng t o adequ at el y e xp l ai n the se nt ence . T he re cord ref l ec t s that th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t s o e rr . Se e U n ite d Sta te s v . Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 992- 93 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). G ar ci a- E qu i hu a a l so cont ends thatun der Ki m brou gh v. U ni ted Stat es , 552 U . S . 85 ( 2007) , the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d bynote xpl a i ni ng the r e a s on f ori m pos i ng a 1 6 - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 , w h ic h G a r c ia - E qu ih u ab e lie v e s is e m p ir ic a llyu n s o u n d . T h e p o lic y b e h in d th e e n h a n c e m e n t is s o u n d . See U ni ted S ta te s v . R a m ir ez - G a r c ia , 269 F . 3d 945, 947- 48 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . A s the r e i s no se para t e obl i gat i on un der Ki m br ough f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to e x p la in w h yit is im p o s in g av a lide n h a n c e m e n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s e x p la n a tio n w a s s u f f ic ie n t. See Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d at99 2 (“ [T ] he di stri ctcourtm ustexpl ai n [the se nt ence ] suff i ci ent l y t o p erm i tm eani ng ful appel l at e r evi ew . ”) . F in a lly , G a r c ia - E q u ih u ac o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly unr e a s onabl e . I n l i ghtof the t ot a l i tyof

the c i r c um s t a nc e s , the s e nt e nc e be l ow the G u id e lin e s r a n g e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le . Se e id. a t993. AF F I RME D.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of SouthFirst Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the quarter-ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Sandra H. Stephens, Interim Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and Janice R. Browning, Controller of the Company, being the
principal financial officer of the Company, do 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 the best of our knowledge:

   1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: May 16, 2005                     By: /s/ Sandra H. Stephens
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Sandra H. Stephens
                                           Interim Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 16, 2005                     By: /s/ Janice R. Browning
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Janice R. Browning
                                           Controller
                                           (Chief Financial Officer)

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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
SEC or its staff upon request.
# L_2012186EN.01003101.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 186/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 186/31

---

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION EUPOL COPPS/1/2012

of 3 July 2012

on the appointment of the Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS)

(2012/383/EU)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP of 14 November 2005 on the European Union Police Mission for Palestinian Territories (1) (EUPOL COPPS), and in particular Article 11(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Under Article 11(1) of Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL COPPS mission, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Under Article 11(1) of Joint Action 2005/797/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of the EUPOL COPPS mission, including in particular the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

| (2) | The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Kenneth DEANE as Head of the EUPOL COPPS mission for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed the appointment of Mr Kenneth DEANE as Head of the EUPOL COPPS mission for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Kenneth DEANE is hereby appointed as Head of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS), for the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

It shall apply from 1 July 2012.

Done at Brussels, 3 July 2012.

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

O. SKOOG

---

(1)  
  OJ L 300, 17.11.2005, p. 65.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of ARKONA, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly  period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Alan
Rudd, 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 to the best of my knowledge:

(1)      The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Alan Rudd
--------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
July 20, 2006
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.5

                                AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                      TO
                       BYLAWS OF 3TEC ENERGY CORPORATION

                              ARTICLE V-OFFICERS

     Section 5.1

     b. Chief Executive Officer. Subject to such supervisory powers, if any, as
may be given by the Board of Directors to the chairman of the board, if there be
such an officer, the Chief Executive Officer shall be the chief executive
officer of the Corporation and shall, subject to the control of the Board of
Directors, have general supervision, direction and control of the business and
officers of the Corporation. He shall preside at all meetings of the
stockholders and, in the absence of the chairman of the board, at all meetings
of the Board of Directors.

        President. The president shall have the general powers and duties of
management usually vested in the office of president of a corporation, subject
to the supervision and direction of the chief executive officer whom he shall
report to. He shall have such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by
the Board of Directors or these bylaws.

                           CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY

     I, the undersigned, do hereby certify:

     (1) That I am the duly elected and acting secretary of 3TEC Energy
         Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"); and

     (2) That the foregoing Amendment No. 1 to the Bylaws of the Corporation was
         duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on April 13,
         2000, wherein Section 5.1.b. of the original Bylaws of the Corporation
         was deleted and the same was inserted in lieu thereof.

     IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name this 17th day of
April, 2000.

                                        /s/ David S. Elkouri
                                        ----------------------------
                                        David S. Elkouri, Secretary
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




The
undersigned officer of Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (the “Company”)
hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Company’s annual report on
Form 10-K to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This
certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item 601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange Act.
In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification
(A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and
(B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
Company specifically incorporates it by reference.




Date:
      March 13, 2009/s/ Thomas
      E. D’AmbraName:
              Thomas
      E. D’Ambra, Ph.D.Title:
              President
      and Chief Executive
Officer
S. 452

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,

the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

An Act

For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1101 et seq.), Belinda McGregor shall be held and considered to

have been selected for a diversity immigrant visa for fiscal year

2000 as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment

of the required visa fee.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Belinda McGregor, or any child

(as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act) of Belinda McGregor, enters the United States before the

date of the enactment of this Act, he or she shall be considered

to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise

eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245

of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

Upon the granting of permanent residence to Belinda McGregor

as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the

proper officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal

year the total number of immigrant visas available to natives
S. 452—2

of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(c) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(c)).

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                       Exibit 21



         SUBSIDIARIES OF CORECOMM LIMITED

    All of the corporation below were incorporated in Delaware except where
otherwise noted, and are wholly owned subsidiaries of CoreComm except where
otherwise noted:


CoreComm, Inc.
CoreComm Billing, Inc.
CoreComm Wireless Group Limited (Bermuda)
CoreComm Wireless, Inc.
CoreComm Group Sub I, Inc.
CoreComm Communications, Inc.
CoreComm Newco, Inc.
Prepaid Communications Corp.
FCC Holdco I, Inc.
Cortelyou Communications Corp.
CoreComm Services, Inc.
Digicom, Inc. (Ohio)
CoreComm Internet Group, Inc.
MegsINet, Inc. (Illinois)
MegsINet - CLEC, Inc. (Illinois)
Q.east Holding Limited (Bermuda) (30% owned by CoreComm)
CoreComm Alabama, Inc.
CoreComm Arizona, Inc.
CoreComm Arkansas, Inc.
CoreComm California, Inc.
CoreComm Colorado, Inc.
CoreComm Connecticut, Inc.
CoreComm Delaware, Inc.
CoreComm District of Columbia, Inc.
CoreComm Florida, Inc.
CoreComm Georgia, Inc.
CoreComm Idaho, Inc.
CoreComm Illinois, Inc.
CoreComm Indiana, Inc.
CoreComm Iowa, Inc.
CoreComm Kansas, Inc.
CoreComm Kentucky, Inc.
CoreComm Louisiana, Inc.
CoreComm Maine, Inc.
CoreComm Maryland, Inc.

<PAGE>   2

CoreComm Massachusetts, Inc.
CoreComm Michigan, Inc.
CoreComm Minnesota, Inc.
CoreComm Mississippi, Inc.
CoreComm Missouri, Inc.
CoreComm Montana, Inc.
CoreComm Nebraska, Inc.
CoreComm Nevada, Inc.
CoreComm New Hampshire, Inc.
CoreComm New Jersey, Inc.
CoreComm New Mexico, Inc.
CoreComm New York, Inc.
CoreComm North Carolina, Inc.
CoreComm North Dakota, Inc.
CoreComm Ohio, Inc.
CoreComm Oklahoma, Inc.
CoreComm Oregon, Inc.
CoreComm Pennsylvania, Inc.
CoreComm Rhode Island, Inc.
CoreComm South Carolina, Inc.
CoreComm South Dakota, Inc.
CoreComm Tennessee, Inc.
CoreComm Texas, Inc.
CoreComm Utah, Inc.
CoreComm Vermont, Inc.
CoreComm Virginia, Inc.
CoreComm Washington, Inc.
CoreComm West Virginia, Inc.
CoreComm Wisconsin, Inc.
CoreComm Wyoming, Inc.