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

An indictment which concludes thus: “giving to him, the said J. T., then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, so as aforesaid discharged and shot out of the rifle gun aforesaid, by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, by the said J. R., in and upon the back of, and a little above the hip of him, the said J. T., one mortal *wound*of the depth of six inches and of the breadth of one inch, of which tire said mortal (omitting the word “ wound”) he, the said J. T., then and there instantly died,” is suf. fleient, and the judgment thereon should not be arrested under sec. 60, chap. 33, Bat. Rev.

IndictmeNt, for *Murder,*tried before Watts, J., at Spring-Term, 1876, of Madison Superior Court.

There was a verdict of “guilt}*-,” whereupon the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment. The motion was overruled, and judgment pronounced, and the prisoner appealed.

The other facts necessary to an understanding of the case, as decided in this Court, are found in the opinion of Justice Bynum.

*Attorney General Hargrove,*for the State.

No counsel in this Court for the prisoner.

Bynum, J.

The prisoner was tried and found guilty of murder, by the jury. His counsel, in the Court below, moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the indictment *59was insufficient, in that it omitted the word “wound” in a material part of it, and thus not showing how the deceased came to his death.

The indictment is in the usual form and regular in all re spects, except that in the conclusion, after alleging that the prisoner discharged his gun in and upon the deceased, it proceeds thus: “ giving to him, the said Joseph Turner, then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, so as aforesaid, discharged aDd shot out of the rifle gun aforesaid, by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, by the said John Rineheart, in and upon the back of, and a little above the hip of him, the said Joseph Turner, one mortal *wound,,*of the depth of six inches and the breadth of one inch, of which said mortal (omitting the word “ wound”) he, the said Joseph Turner, then and there instantly died.”

It is clear that the omission of the word “ wound ” in this place is not material, inasmuch as the wound had just before been described and charged to have been a “ mortal wound.” It would not, therefore, have impaired the sufficiency of the indictment, if it had ended after the words “ one inch,” in the following manner: of which the said Joseph Turner then and there instantly died.” Certainly any such irregularity is cured by the statute. Bat. Rev., chap. 33, sec. 60, “and the same shall not be quashed, nor the judgment thereon stayed, by reason of any informality or refinement, if in the bill, or proceeding, sufficient matter appears to enable the Court to proceed to judgment.”

The charge of his Honor to the jury was correct, and the record, on examination, containing no error to the prejudice of the prisoner, the judgment must be affirmed.

There is no error. This will be certified.

Bee. Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7473

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GREGORY A. MILTON, a/k/a G, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:95-cr-70074-sgw-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory A. Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorn ey, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gregory A. Milton appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000), and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United

States v. Milton , No. 5:95-cr-70074-sgw-1 (W.D. Va. July 9 & 24, 2008). 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>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
<CIK>                         0000925988
<NAME>                        Aetna Insurance Company of America
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                86,525
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                    0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                      0
<EQUITIES>                                               0
<MORTGAGE>                                               0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                            0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                      87,525
<CASH>                                              24,208
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                       0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                              32,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     634,480
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                          0
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                      0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                           0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                               109,358
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             2,550
<OTHER-SE>                                          33,670
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       634,480
<PREMIUMS>                                               0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                  2,878
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                      70
<OTHER-INCOME>                                         113
<BENEFITS>                                           2,619
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                              0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        363
<INCOME-TAX>                                            45
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    318
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           318
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                           0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                      0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                        0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                       0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                         0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                          0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 09, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, February 09, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17A0301. CROWN CASTLE USA INC. et al. v. ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### STATE, TO THE USE OF MOSES RINGOLD vs. JOHN T. McGOWAN *&*AL.

Where a constable was appointed at -February Term, 1848, and in August 1848, a claim was put in his hands for collection, on which he obtained a judgment, and a stay was granted by a magistrate, which expired during February Term, 1849, when the said constable was not reappointed at February Term, 1849, but in July following was appointed deputy sheriff, and then took out execution on the claim, collected it and failed to pay it over. *Held,*that he was not responsible on his constable’s bond, no default having been committed during the year of his appointment.

The cases of *Keck*v *Cob!e,*2 Dev. 489, .and *State*v *Lackey,*3 Ire. 25, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pitt County, at the Spring Term, 1851, his Honor Judge Ellis presiding.

No counsel for the plaintiff.

*Biggs*and Donnell, for the defendants.

Nash, *S.*

The action is upon a constable’s bond; and the.breach relied on was for collecting money and not paying over.

•At the February Term, 1848, of Pitt County Court, the defendant, McGowan, was appointed a constabl e, and .entered into bond with the other defendants as his sureties. His official year expired at February Term, 1849. In Au- ■ gust, 1848, the relator placed in his hands a note, for which he gave a receipt, binding himself to collect or return. On. the same day, the constable obtained a judgment on the note, on' which the. magistrate granted a stay of six months, which expired during February Term, 1849. McGowan was not appointed a constable at February Term, but in *45July following, was, by the sheriff, appointed his deputy, after which he took out an execution on the judgment and collected the money. The action is brought upon the official bond of 1848. The plaintiff cannot recover. The appointment of a constable is but for one year, and the bond given by him loses its force as to any breach of duty after that period. The bond, upon which this action is brought, covered only such breaches on the part of the constable, as occurred after his appointment in February, 1848, and before February Court, 1849. *Keck*v Coble, 2 Dev. 489, *State*v Lackey, 3 Ire. 25. During that period, he received no money on the claim put in his hands for collection, nor was he guilty of any negligence. He received the note in August, 1848, and on the same day took a judgment on it, and the stay upon it ran out at February Term, 1849, when his official year expired. He subsequently did receive the money tinder an execution, not as constable, but as deputy sheriff, and as such is answerable.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 402

For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

For the relief of Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii.

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

3 That, notwithstanding section 8337(b) of title 5, United

4 States Code, Alfredo Tolentino of Honolulu, Hawaii may

5 file an application no later than 60 days after the date

6 of the enactment of this Act with the Office of Personnel

7 Management for a claim of disability retirement under

8 such section.

Æ
COVID-19 Guidance on Ventilation 

in the Workplace

OSHA is committed to protecting the health and safety of America’s workers and workplaces during 

the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency is issuing a series of alerts to help keep workers safe.

Ensuring adequate ventilation throughout the work 

environment can help maintain a safe and healthy 

workplace. Employers should work with a qualified heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) professional to 

determine steps necessary to optimize building ventilation. 

An HVAC professional can ensure that the ventilation 

system is operating as intended. 

Taking the following steps can help reduce employee risk 

of exposure to the coronavirus:

 Instruct sick workers to stay home.

 Consult with an HVAC professional and building management to maintain relative humidity 

between 40-60%.

 When changing filters, ensure workers wear appropriate personal protective equipment. 

ASHRAE recommends N95 respirators, eye protection (safety glasses, goggles, or face shields), and 

disposable gloves. 

 Make sure exhaust fans in restrooms are fully functional, operating at maximum capacity, and set 

to remain on.

 Ensure policies encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

For the latest guidance and other resources on protecting workers from coronavirus, visit 

OSHA’s Protecting Workers Guidance.

OSHA issues alerts to draw attention to 

worker safety and health issues and solutions.

 • osha.gov/coronavirus • 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) • @OSHA_DOL

OSHA 4103-03R 2021
**EXHIBIT 23.01**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-91146, 333-68590, 333-90029, 333-70455, and333-31190 on Form S-8 of Concur Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated December 19, 2003, appearing in the Annual Reports on Form 10-K of Concur Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended September 30, 2003. 

 

**DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**

 

Seattle, Washington 

December 19, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10K
FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000277595
<NAME> ENERGEN CORPORATION 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      295,881
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    371,122
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         242,165
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         9,485
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 919,797
<COMMON>                                           144
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      188,643
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            112,356
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 301,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           279,602
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             202,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,855
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 135,197
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  919,797
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      448,230
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             3,097
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     396,244
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     399,341
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         48,889
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,014
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  51,903
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        22,906
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,997
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   28,997
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        15,299
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       14,250
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          66,782
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.31
        

</TABLE>
Congressional Record UNUM

E PLURIBUS

United States

of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110th

 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

.

S10509 

Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2008 No. 162 

House of Representatives 

The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Saturday, January 3, 2009, at 11 a.m. 

Senate 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2008 

(Legislative day of Wednesday, September 17, 2008) 

The Senate met at 3 and 5 seconds 

p.m., on the expiration of the recess, 

and was called to order by the Honorable ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., a Senator 

from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

f 

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING 

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will please read a communication 

to the Senate from the President pro 

tempore (Mr. BYRD). 

The legislative clerk read the following letter: 

U.S. SENATE, 

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, 

Washington, DC, October 6, 2008. 

To the Senate: 

Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of 

the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby 

appoint the Honorable ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., 

a Senator from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to perform the duties of the Chair. 

ROBERT C. BYRD, 

President pro tempore. 

Mr. CASEY thereupon assumed the 

chair as Acting President pro tempore. 

f 

RECESS UNTIL TUESDAY, 

OCTOBER 7, 2008, AT 11 A.M. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

Senate stands in recess until Tuesday, 

October 7, 2008, at 11 a.m. 

Thereupon, the Senate, at 3 and 35 

seconds p.m., recessed until Tuesday, 

October 7, 2008, at 11 a.m. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
Exhibit 99.1



                            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  for the  quarterly  period  ended  December  31,  2002 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. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



February 18, 2003                /s/ Alan Rudd
                                 ----------------------------
                                     Alan Rudd
                                     Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2210-E2211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              CELEBRATING FILIPINO AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BOB FILNER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 2, 2008

  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about a resolution 
that I have just introduced along with Congressmen Honda, Issa, and 
Bobby Scott, my colleagues on the

[[Page E2211]]

U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, H. Res. 1523. This resolution 
recognizes Filipino American Heritage Month and celebrating the 
heritage and culture of Filipino Americans and their immense 
contributions to our Nation.
  The Filipino American National Historical Society established 
Filipino American History Month in 1988 but I was surprised to learn 
that the House of Representatives has never recognized this month, 
which is long overdue! We are pleased to honor the Filipino American 
community and pay tribute to the extraordinary contributions that 
Filipinos make to this Nation. Filipino Americans have been part of the 
American experience, confronting many difficult challenges while being 
resolute and steadfast in their cultural heritage.
  We honor the Filipino Americans, from the farm workers to nurses and 
doctors and to the brave and courageous soldiers who fought shoulder to 
shoulder with American servicemen. This country is indebted to the 
Filipino veterans of World War II for their extraordinary sacrifices. 
We promise that we will not give up. Equity and recognition for World 
War II Veterans is a moral imperative!
  I invite my colleagues to join with me in honoring the history, 
culture, and contribution of Filipino Americans in the United States, 
by supporting this important resolution, H. Res. 1523.

                          ____________________
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Price, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 896]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter Benitez, J.), rendered May 7, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and rape in the first degree, and *118sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the juiy’s determinations concerning credibility. The element of forcible compulsion required to prove rape, and concomitantly to prove felony murder, was established by extensive evidence of a type closely associated with forcible rape. Defendant’s argument that this evidence was consistent with consensual sex, followed by an assault, is not a reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence herein.

The court properly declined to provide a circumstantial evidence charge, since there was both direct and circumstantial evidence *(see People v Roldan,*88 NY2d 826 [1996]; *People v Daddona,*81 NY2d 990 [1993]; *People v Woolridge,*272 AD2d 242 [2000]).

The court properly precluded defendant from introducing evidence that constituted hearsay, and was inadmissible under the Rape Shield Law (CPL 60.42). Defendant’s claim that he was constitutionally entitled to introduce the evidence at issue is unpreserved *(see People v Angelo,*88 NY2d 217, 222 [1996]; *People v Gonzalez,*54 NY2d 729 [1981]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of defendant’s right to present a defense *(see Crane v Kentucky,*476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.