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

An indictment for Fornication and adultery, charging that the defendants “ did unlawfully and adulterously bed and eo-habit together, and then and there d'd unlawful'y commit fornication and adulterj',’ is amply sufficient, and ought not to be quashed.

INDICTMENT for Fornication and Adultery, tried before his Honor, Judge *'Watts,*at Fall Term, 1815, of tbe Superior ■Court of G-eanville county.

The defendant was held to answer upon the following bill of indictment:

“The jurors for the State upon their oath present, that Chas. Tally, yeoman, and Winney Bass, spinster, both late of the county of Granville, being lewd and vicious pei-sons, and not united together in marriage, on the 28th day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-five, and on divers other days and times, both before and after that day, at and in the county aforesaid, did unlawfully and adulterously bed and cohabit together, and then and there did unlawfully commit fornication and adultery, in contempt of the holy rites of matrimony, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and -provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.”

The defendants moved the court to quash the bill “ for that the offence therein charged is not sufficiently stated to constitute the crime of fornication and adultery.”

The motion was allowed and the Solicitor for the State appealed.

*Attorney General*Hargrove, for the State.

*Busbee <& Busbee,*for defendants.

Settle, J.

The defendant insists that the indictment is in • sufficient:

*3231. “ For that it does not contain the material words of the statute, against fornication and adultery.”

2. “ There are no words used in the indictment, sufficient to charge every ingredient of the offence as defined by statute.”

As a general rule it is safe, in pleading, to follow the words of a statute, but this is not necessary, nor indeed always proper.

This bill charges that Charles Tally, yeoman, and "Winney Bass, spinster, both late of &c., being lewd and vicious persons, and not united together in marriage, on the 28th day of July, A. D., 1875, and on divers other days and times, both before and after that day, at and in the county, &e., did unlawfully and adulterously bed and cohabit together, and then and there did unlawfully commit fornication and adultery, &c.

The bill is amply sufficient.. I believe it is a copy of an old and well approved form, long in use by the Solicitors of this State, since the adoption of our present statute. However that may be, an examination of the cases collected in 1 Battle’s Digest, page 519, title Fornteation and Adultery, will abundantly show that bills much less accurate and formal than this have been sustained by this court. We are not disposed to be hypercritical about words, when the substance sufficiently appears in the pleading.

The judgment of the Superior Court quashing the indictment is reversed.

Let this be certified, «fee.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 4.3.1



1.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL1, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.

2.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL2, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.

3.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL3, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.

4.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL4, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.

5.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL5, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.

6.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL6, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.

7.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL7, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.

8.  The Facility Lease dated as of December __, 2001 by and among EME Homer City
    Generation, L.P., a Pennsylvania limited partnership, as Facility Lessee
    and Homer City OL8, a Delaware limited liability company, as Owner Lessor.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6077
DONTEZ LAMONT SIMUEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBY LEE; R. A. THOMPSON; SHERRY MCFEATERS; LIEUTENANT MONROE; SERGEANT UPTON; PHYSICIAN BOWE, Defendants - Appellees, and DOCTOR CIBUB, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:03-ct-00350-F) Submitted: July 6, 2007 Decided: July 27, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dontez Lamont Simuel, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Dana- 2 - Hefter Davis, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Dontez Lamont Simuel appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Simuel v. Lee , No. 5:03-ct-00350-F (E.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                  15,961
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  14,694
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  28,173
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                   2,744
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                  59,468
<PP&E>                                               0                  27,069
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  13,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                  85,085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  29,632
<BONDS>                                              0                   2,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                      36
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                  52,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                  85,085
<SALES>                                         12,790                  22,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,550                  34,146
<CGS>                                              844                   1,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,241                   9,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,229                  29,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                171                     310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,823)                 (5,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       102                     145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,925)                 (5,165)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,925)                 (5,165)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)                  (0.14)


</TABLE>
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

MAY 23, 2016 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD33919 

 Re: HORST SABLA, 

 Movant-Appellant, 

 vs. 

 STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent-Respondent.
**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**

| (1)   | The                Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));                and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all                material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated:              February 8, 2007                                                |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                      |   |   |   |
| /s/ Roy              Israel                                           |   |   |   |
| Roy                Israel –                Chairman of the Board, CEO and President |   |   |        |

----
Exhibit 99.1

                                CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I,  Jackelyn  Giroux,  President  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/ Jackelyn Giroux
                         -------------------
                         Jackelyn Giroux, President / Director
EXHIBIT 13.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Enacted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 First Energy Metals Limited (the “Company”) is filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”). I, Jurgen Wolf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Jurgen WolfJurgen Wolf Chief Financial Officer July 29, 2022


---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT LAVON ERIK CHAPMAN, Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-1534 September 1, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle D. Sisco, Judge. Rachael E. Reese and Olivia M. Nathan of O'Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. KELLY, LUCAS, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Able Energy Inc. (the "Company"), on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Christopher P. Westad, Acting Chief
Executive Officer of the Company and Steven M. Vella, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Christopher P. Westad
---------------------------------------
Christopher P. Westad
Acting Chief Executive Officer
September 28, 2005


/s/ Steven M. Vella
---------------------------------------
Steven M. Vella
Chief Financial Officer
September 28, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Able Energy Inc. and will be retained by Able Energy Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**







**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      Dr.
      John J. McGrath, 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;




(i)
      the
      Annual Report of EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corp. on Form 10-K/A for the
      year
      ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and




(ii) information
      contained in such report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of EVCI Career Colleges Holding
      Corp.








Dated:
                May 15, 2006
            
            
            
            /s/
                Dr. John J. McGrathDr.
                John J. McGrath
              Chief
                Executive Officer and President
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-8031 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARRIEM WALI MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant - Appellant. No. 01-8048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KARRIEM WALI MUHAMMAD, a/k/a Charles William Cannon, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CR-79- 134-M, CR-79-151-M, CA-01-3341-MJG)2 Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karriem Wali Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Karriem W. Muhammad appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions, which the court properly construed as motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-52 (5th Cir. 1998). Because this court has not granted Muhammad authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001), the district court properly dismissed his Rule 60(b) motions as successive § 2255 motions. See Rich , 141 F.3d at 553. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss these appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### STATE v. WILLIAM LOCKE.

*Indictment*— Murder—Judge’s *Charge.*

1. Where on the trial of an indictment for murder, the Court charged the jury “that if they believed the witnesses A, Band C, or *either*of them, the fact of slaying was proved *Held,*to be error.

:2. It is the exclusive province of the jury to say whether the evidence proves a fact or not; Therefore, the Court cannot weigh the evidence and declare the result as a matter of law to the jury.

INDICTMENT for Murder, removed from Rowan and tried ¡at Spi-ing Term, 1877, of Davidson Superior Court, before Kerr, *J.*

The facts necessary to an understanding of the point decided in this Court are sufficiently stated by Mr. Justice Fatr-oloth. Yerdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant. ■

*Attorney General*and *Mr. J. M. McCorkle,*for the State.

*Messrs. Shipp $ Bailey,*for the defendant.

EaiRCLOTH, J.

The defendant was indicted for the murder of one Barringer, and was convicted. There were several witnesses examined who proved that there was a fight faking place between other parties, and the evidence was ■conflicting in regard to the conduct of the deceased and the prisoner. His Honor charged the jury, that “ if they believed the witnesses, Plummer, Livengood and Cully, or *•either*of them, the fact of slaying had been proved,” and the prisoner excepted.

The witness Livengood testified as follows: “ Prisoner was standing near a fence whittling with his knife ; a difficulty arose between Matt. Locke and Tom Hyde; deceased passed by the witness going across the log, prisoner passed *482on below witness, going towards the- deceased ; in a short time he saw prisoner leaving deceased, and saw blood running from the deceased, and the prisoner trotting off for about fifty yards, and their he took off his hat and ran with great speed; the deceased had nothing to do with the fight going on ; prisoner approached deceased coolly and slowly, ■*. * * did not see prisoner after he passed witness, until he saw him running off’ as before stated.”

The ease was argued before us on this exception alone,, and we sustain the exception. The homicide, of course, is a material fact *to be*established by proof, and it is the exclusive province of the jury to say, whether the evidence proves the fact or not. Livengood does not say that the prisoner slew the deceased, but only deposes to certain circumstances which might or might not satisfy the jury. His Honor invaded their province by charging the jury, that if they believed Livengood, the fact of slaying is proved. This was ■ weighing the evidence and declaring the result as a matter of law to the jury.

“ No Judge, in giving a chai’ge to the petty jury, shall give an opinion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven, ,such matter being the true office and province of the jury, &c.” Bat, Rev. "ch. 17, § 237.

"W e have looked carefully through the whole of His Hon- or’s charge, and find nothing to cure the error above designated.

There is error. Let this be certified to the Court below to the end that the case may proceed according to law.

Per Curiam. *Venire de novo.*
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 695

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery

for veterans in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1999

Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Mr. COVERDELL) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a

national cemetery for veterans in the Atlanta, Georgia,

metropolitan area.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

5 shall establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38,

6 United States Code, a national cemetery in the Atlanta,

7 Georgia, metropolitan area to serve the needs of veterans

8 and their families.
2

•S 695 IS

1 (b) CONSULTATION IN SELECTION OF SITE.—Before

2 selecting the site for the national cemetery established

3 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with—

4 (1) appropriate officials of the State of Georgia

5 and local officials of the Atlanta, Georgia, metropoli6 tan area; and

7 (2) appropriate officials of the United States,

8 including the Administrator of General Services,

9 with respect to land belonging to the United States

10 in that area that would be suitable to establish the

11 national cemetery under subsection (a).

12 (c) REPORT.—As soon as practicable after the date

13 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit

14 to Congress a report on the establishment of the national

15 cemetery under subsection (a). The report shall set forth

16 a schedule for such establishment and an estimate of the

17 costs associated with such establishment.

Æ