alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-73,556-03

EX P ARTE CHRISTO P HER LAMAR MOORE, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2007-503-C3B IN THE 54TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM MC LENNAN COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was co n v i cted of ag g rava ted robber y and sentenc ed to twenty -nine y ear s’ imprisonment. The Tenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his convi cti on. Moore v. State , No. 10-08-00211- CR (Tex. App.–Waco, J uly 2, 2009). Applicant filed this ap p l i ca t i on for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant attache s an aff

idavit to his writ application, which he alleg es is newly discovere d evidenc e. The State calls into question the cre dibilit y of the unsworn aff idavit and claims that, even if true, Applicant fails to show that his sentenc e would have been differ ent without that testimony

. The application was forwa rded to this Court wit h o u t t h e trial court making finding s of fac t andco n cl u s ions of law. We rema nd this application to the trial court to complete an evide n t i ar y investiga tion addre ssing whether the aff idav i t provides a newly available fac tual basis for a subsequent writ application. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07 Sec. 4(c)

. I f the trial court deter mines the aff idavit overc omes the Section 4 bar to subsequent applications, the trial court shall also make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law reg arding the cre dibilit y of the aff idavit and the eff

ect of this evidenc e on Applica

nt’s sentenc e. The trial co u rt shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and concl usions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: October

7, 2020 Do not publish
#### BESSIE W. KELLOGG v. THE GAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

*Practice*— Premature *Appeal.*

An appeal from a motion to dismiss an action is premature and will not be entertained.

MotioN to dismiss an action for want of service of summons, beard before *Brown, J.,*at Fall Term, 1891, of Gates Superior Court.

Motion refused, and defendant appealed.

*Messrs. Pruden & Vann,*for plaintiff.

*Mr. L. L. Smith,*for defendant (appellant).

Per Curiam :

This is an appeal from the refusal of a motion to dismiss an action. The appeal is premature, and cannot be entertained. *Mullen*v. *Canal Company,*at this Term. Appeal Dismissed.
----

 Exhibit 32.2 

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

 Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent  required by 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Financial  Officer of VIPC Communications, Inc. that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report  of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year-ended December 31, 2002, fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents,  in all material respects, the company’s financial condition and results  of operations. 

October 10, 2003

/s/ Michael Harrop                                      Michael Harrop, Chief Financial Officer 

----
Economic Benefits of the OSHA On-Site Consultation Program - Summary

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a working paper showing that the 

agency’s On-Site Consultation Program generates national economic benefits of approximately $1.3 

billion per year.

The OSHA On-Site Consultation Program offers no-cost and confidential occupational safety and health 

services to small and medium-sized businesses in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. 

territories with priority given to high-hazard worksites. On-Site Consultation services are separate from 

enforcement and do not result in penalties or citations. Consultants from local agencies or universities

work with employers to identify workplace hazards, provide advice for compliance with OSHA standards, 

and assist in establishing and improving safety and health programs.

OSHA routinely performs rigorous economic analysis of agency regulations. OSHA economists

performed a similar analysis of On-Site Consultation, based on established economic principles and 

widely recognized values, such as the Value of a Statistical Injury (VSI). 

The economists considered three distinct models for determining the economic contributions of On-Site 

Consultation:

• A one-time, one-year safety and health management program;

• A Hazard-reduction exercise; and

• An OSHA enforcement inspection.

Ultimately, the agency determined that a one-time, one-year safety and health management program 

most closely aligns with the services provided by the On-Site Consultation Program. Using conservative 

estimates based on the avoidance of OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses (not including fatalities 

prevented or prevention of delayed-onset illnesses) and looking at benefits to employers, workers’ 

compensation systems, and the workers themselves, OSHA developed the following breakdown of the 

benefits the OSHA On-Site Consultation Program provides to the national economy.

Annual Benefits of the OSC Program*

Covered Workers 1,260,932

Estimated Injuries per Year 37,828

Injuries Prevented by OSC Program Visits 9,457

Value of Avoided Injury per Injury $77,000

Workers’ Compensation Cost per Injury $30,526

Benefits to Workers from Avoided Injuries $728,188,374

Benefits to the Workers’ Compensation System from 

Reduced Claims $288,684,134

Benefits to Employers from Avoided Indirect Costs $317,552,547

Total $1,334,425,056

*Totals may not sum due to rounding

For the full paper, please see: https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/2018_Benefits_OSHA_OnSite_Consultation_Program_Economic_Analysis.pdf
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,091
<ALLOWANCES>                                       693
<INVENTORY>                                        692
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,524
<PP&E>                                           3,805
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,164
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,504
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,206
<SALES>                                          1,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,007
<CGS>                                              856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,354
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   243
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,915)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,915)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.21)


</TABLE>
9 Steps to Reducing Worker Exposure 

to COVID-19 in Meat, Poultry, and Pork 

Processing and Packaging Facilities

Keep you and the people working around you safe. 

Take these steps even if you have no symptoms of COVID-19.

1-800-321-OSHA (6742)

TTY 1-877-889-5627

OSHA 4050-07 2020

www.osha.gov

Stay home if you 

are sick. 

➊

Wear protective equipment 

for general safety and 

to limit the spread of 

the virus.

➐

Maintain at least six

feet physical distance 

between co-workers.

➋

Avoid group gatherings 

during work breaks, 

even if outside.

➌ Install partitions along 

the production line 

to achieve physical 

distance. 

➍

➎ Avoid sharing equipment

and tools. Regularly clean

tools and equipment

that must be shared.

Report any safety and 

health concerns to your 

supervisor, or to OSHA. 

➏ Use soap and water for

handwashing.

Avoid carpooling 

to and from work, 

if possible.

➒ Stay current on public health 

recommendations. For more information, 

visit www.osha.gov/coronavirus or call

1-800-321-OSHA (6742).

Occupational 

Safety and Health 

Administration

➑

Given the evolving nature of the pandemic, OSHA is in the process of reviewing and updating this document. These materials may no longer

represent current OSHA recommendations and guidance. For the most up-to-date information, consult Protecting Workers Guidance.
#### Brown v. Brent.

Monday, September 22, 1806.

Usury — Interest on Interest.* — It is not usurious, upon a settlement of accounts, to take a bond or note for the balance due, including interest, and to receive interest on such bond or note.

*

Usury—Purchase of Note at Greater Discount Than Legal interest — An ordinary note or bond may be purchased at a greater discount than legal interest without imputations of usury, although such bond or note be given for accommodation, the purchaser being ignorant of that fact. Whitworth v. Adams, 5 Rand. 385, citing the principal case; Gibson v. Fristoe, 1 Call 62; Price v. Campbell, 2 Call 110; Skipwith v. Gibson, 4 Hen. & M. 490; Hansbrough v. Baylor, 2 Munf. 36.

See further, monographic *note*on “Usury” appended to Coffman v. Miller, 26 Gratt. 698.

The complainant had assumed, on account of a certain U. Ashton, to pay the amount due on a mortgage made by one Garrard, to the defendant. He afterwards paid a part, and gave a promissory note to the defendant for the balance, consisting of the principal and interest added together. Upon that note a judgment at law was obtained, to be relieved against which the present suit was instituted, and an injunction awarded. The bill stated, that when the complainant gave his note, the defendant assured him that the said Ashton had agreed to pay him compound interest, and that, if he did not acknowledge it upon application, he, the defendant, would release it; and that the said Ashton, upon an application made to him, had denied that he ever had agreed to pay the defendant more than simple interest. The defendant, in his answer, having denied the existence of the particular agreement stated in the bill, and there being no evidence to prove the same, the only question remaining was, whether the transaction was usurious or not.

By the Court. The application at present is for a dissolution of the injunction. It is not usurious, upon a settlement of accounts, to take a bond or note for the balance due, including interest, and to receive interest on such *bond or note. It is done every day in the usual course of business, and is even directed by law, in every case where a forthcoming bond is taken, which is always for the amount of the execution, including interest, if any there be, and bearing a farther interest, from the date thereof, until payment. This being considered by the Court as the established law of the .land, the injunction must be dissolved.
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
7A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FRANK MILFORD PECK, Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

### Respondent. No. 69633 

# FILED MAR 1 7 2016 CIE

. K i. LINIA MAN cLE r • is it. tett .' 

### ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a pro se petition for a writ of prohibition. Petitioner seeks an order prohibiting the district court from imposing page limits on an unspecified petition. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.320; NRS 34.330. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

HardestSi iyzo 

# , y Saitta 

# g elesAtuf J.

J. Pickering
cc: Frank Milford Peck Attorney GeneraliCarson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk
##### 



Certification of CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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/ Thomas M. HerzogThomas M. HerzogExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(equivalent of the chief financial officer of AIMCO Properties, L.P.)May 5, 2006
Argued and submitted May 30,

reversed August 8, 1990

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*MATTIE ANN MARTZ, *Appellant.*

(10-88-04062; CA A61146)

795 P2d 616

Henry M. Silberblatt, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Michael Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Joseph, Chief Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*106PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals her conviction for frequenting a place where controlled substances are used. ORS 167.222. She argues that the trial court lacked authority to enter a judgment of conviction for that crime, because it is not a lesser included offense of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992, the only offense for which she was indicted. We reverse.

The state concedes that the elements of frequenting are not necessarily included in the statutory definition of possession.1 It also acknowledges that the indictment did not allege facts establishing the elements of frequenting. It follows that the trial court lacked authority to convict defendant for that offense. *See State v. Moroney,*289 Or 597, 616 P2d 471 (1980).

The state argues that we should not consider the trial court’s error, because defendant failed to preserve it below. However, the error is plain on the face of the record. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction.

Reversed.

1

 Under ORS 167.222(1),

> “[a] person commits the offense of frequenting a place where controlled substances are used if the person keeps, maintains, frequents, or remains at a place, while knowingly permitting persons to use controlled substances in such place or to keep or sell them in violation of ORS 475.005 to 475.285,475.295 and 475.940 to 475.995.”

The word “permitting” in the statute means

> “that one who, (1) having legal authority over persons who use, keep, or sell illegal controlled substances, at the specified place where the defendant frequents or remains, (2) authorizes or consents to such use, possession, or sale.” *State v. Pyritz,*90 Or App 601, 605, 752 P2d 1310 (1988).

ORS 475.992(4) states, in pertinent part:

> “It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance * *

The statutory definition of “possess” is “to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over property.” ORS 161.015(8).
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 159 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10307]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

                TRIBUTE TO FALLEN WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have a favorite quote about 
firefighters: ``All men are created equal, then a few become firemen.''
  Firefighters are indeed a rare breed--selfless and brave. It is a 
tragedy when even one is lost. On September 1, Montana and America lost 
not one but three firefighters in an airplane crash as they rushed to 
quell the flames of a fire in California. Gene Wahlstrom, Greg 
Gonsioroski, and Zachary VanderGriend may be gone from this Earth, but 
they will never be forgotten. Their sacrifice and unwavering dedication 
to the lives of others stand as an example for all Americans. These 
brave men were based in Missoula, MT, and though they hailed from 
Washington and Utah in addition to the Big Sky State, I am proud to 
call them all Montanans.
  Gene Wahlstrom began his 35-year flying career as a crop duster and 
rose to the position of chief pilot for Neptune Aviation. Gene was a 
Vietnam veteran and a natural leader and mentor. Folks who knew Gene 
say he was a kind, genuine, accomplished, and loyal friend.
  Most folks who knew Greg Gonsioroski just called him ``Gonzo.'' He 
began his career as an airplane mechanic but decided to take to the 
skies himself. Greg was a native of Baker, MT. A family man first, 
father to Gabriel, Grady, and Gracelyn, and doting husband to Kim, he 
will be remembered as a gentle giant and a loving and patient father, 
husband, and friend.
  Zachary VanderGriend was a new employee with Neptune Aviation but not 
new to flying--he had dreamed of being a pilot since he was 2 years 
old. Zachary got his pilot's license when he was 17 and spent much of 
his time in volunteer programs such as the Young Eagles. As noted in 
his eulogy, Zachary was a devoted Christian who loved to fly ``because 
it was there he felt closest to God.''
  I believe service is one of the most honorable things a person can 
do. Whether it is service to ones community, State, or country, service 
is the most noble of all human endeavors.
  In Montana and indeed across much of the West, fires are an almost 
constant threat. It is the price we pay for living in one of the most 
beautiful places on earth. So every year we place our belongings, our 
homes and our lives in the hands of firefighters--too often without a 
second thought.
  The loss of Gene, Greg, and Zachary gives us pause. As a Montanan and 
an American, I feel tremendous sadness in their passing but also 
tremendous gratitude for the time we were graced with their 
presence.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT
32.a
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADDED BY
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Provident Community Bancshares, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Dwight V. Neese, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as added by 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the period covered by the
Report.
 
 
 /s/  Dwight V. Neese
 Dwight V.
Neese
 President and
Chief Executive Officer
 Date:   May
7, 2008
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

I, George R. Chapdelaine,certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Boston Restaurant Associates, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial informationincluded in this report,  fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations,  and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)         [omitted]

 

(c)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport;  based on such evaluation and

 

(d)         Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation  of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  November 30, 2004 |   |   | /s/ George R. Chapdelaine            |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |   | George R. Chapdelaine, President and |
|                     |   |   | Chief Executive Officer              |

 

----