alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sherrill *v.*State.

Opinion delivered May 21, 1928.

*I. S. Simmons,*for appellant.

*H. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, for appellee.

Hart, C. J.

Andrew Sherrill prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against him for stealing cattle.

The first assignment of error is that there is a variance between the cattle as described in the indictment and the evidence in the case. The indictment charges the defendant with stealing cattle which are *287specifically described as to color, earmarks and brands. The testimony for the State identified the cattle charged to have been stolen by color and brand, bnt the earmarks, as testified to by the owner of the cattle, differed in some respects from the earmarks as described in the indictment. We think the description of the cattle by color, marks and brands, in the testimony of the prosecuting witness, which fully correspond with the color, marks and brands described in the indictment, was a substantial compliance with the rule of this court that the descriptive allegations of the identity of stolen property as laid in the indictment must be established !by proof. *Fletcher*v. *State,*97 Ark. 1, 132 S. W. 918; and *Ridgell*v. *State,*110 Ark. 606, 162 S. W. 773.

It is next insisted that the court erred in instructing the jury on the question of alibi. We do not deem it necessary to ¡set out the instruction. It is substantially in the same form as the instruction given in *Ware*v. *State,*59 Ark. 379, 27 S. W. 485. As said in that case, when the instruction is carefully considered, it does not intimate any opinion of the court upon the weight of the evidence, nor does it tend in any manner to disparage the testimony introduced by the defendant to prove an alibi. Moreover, the court fully and fairly instructed the jury upon the doctrine of reasonable doubt, and the instructions given fully and fairly presented the respective theories of the State and of the defendant to the jury. *Smith*v. *State,*162 Ark. 458, 258 S. W. 49; and *Meadors*v. *State,*171 Ark. 705, 285 S. W. 380.

It is also insisted that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Dewey and T. D. McEntire were not one and the same person. The indictment charges the defendant with stealing cattle which were the property of “Dewey (T. D.) McEntire.” The testimony of Algy Bennett shows that T. D. and Dewey McEntire were one and the same person. There is no question but what some one stole the cattle of T. D., or Dewey, McEntire. The defendant, as above stated, inter*288posed the defense of an alibi, and that was the principal issue of fact to be determined by the jury. Hence we hold that the court did not err in refusing to give the instruction asked for.

We have carefully examined the record, and find no prejudicial error in it. The evidence adduced by the State, if believed by the jury, warranted a verdict of guilty. It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code), I, Darrell Borne, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that:

This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|November 7, 2003 |  | /s/DARRELL BORNEDarrell Borne Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Secretary
|---------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 4(w)









February 25, 2011











Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F. Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





Subject:
General Electric Capital Services, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 – File No. 000-14804





Dear Sirs:




Neither General Electric Capital Services, Inc. (the “Corporation”) nor any of its subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed as an exhibit to the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, under which the total amount of securities authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with paragraph (b) (4) (iii) of Item 601 of Regulation S-K (17 CFR §229.601), the Corporation hereby agrees to furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of each instrument that defines the rights of holders of such long-term debt not filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.




Very truly yours,




GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.














By:       /s/ Kathryn A. Cassidy


Kathryn A. Cassidy


Senior Vice President Corporate Treasury


and Global Funding Operation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN TRESLLEY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-1074
v. CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

BILLFINGER WESTCOM INC./
BLUE SPRUCE, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of a Report and Recommendation issued
by the Magistrate Judge on April 5, 2018. (ECF No. 9.) The time for filing objections has
passed, and no objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendation, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against the John Doe
defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

$-4~2018 fe

DATE aE eae JR.
CHIEF 'D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### Gehl *v.*State.

Opinion delivered March 18, 1929.

*Robert L. Rogers,*for appellant.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Pat Mehaffy,*Assistant, for appellee.

Humphreys, J.

Appellant was indicted in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, First Division, for murder in the first degree, for killing Charles Weldon, and, on the trial of the cause-, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and, as a punishment therefor, was adjudged to- serve a term of two years in the State Penitentiary, from which he has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

The only assignment of error urged for a reversal of the judgment is the permission granted by the. trial court to special counsel to read testimony taken at the coroner’s inquest as a part of his statement to the jury. Before offering evidence in support of an indictment, a prosecuting attorney, or any attorney assisting him, may make a brief statement -of the evidence on which the State relies. Section 3171 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest so provides. There is nothing in this statute authorizing the reading -of testimony theretofore taken in aid of the statement, and it is 'bad practice, and should not be countenanced. It was error to allow the evidence- taken at the coroner’s inquest to be read, but we are unable *207to discover any prejudice resulting to appellant on account of reading same. The testimony read did not differ in any material respect from' that subsequently introduced by the State in support of the indictment. In order to guard aeainst any prejudice that might result to appellant on account of reading the testimony, the court admonished the jury not to consider the testimony read as evidence in the case, but to treat same as a statement of what the State expected to prove; and, further, that they must be governed only by the evidence introduced and the instructions given by the court.

No' prejudicial error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
EX-99.1

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
of Capital Group One, Inc. for the quarter ended August 31, 2003,
I, Matthew McNeally Chief Executive Officer of Financial
Ventures, Inc. and I, James Steward, Chief Financial Officer of
Capital Group One, Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) 	such Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended August 31,
2003, 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 such Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended August 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Capital Group One, Inc.

December 4, 2003


                              By:/s/ Matthew McNeally
                                 --------------------------
                                  Matthew McNeally
                                  Chief Executive Officer


                              By:/s/ James Steward
                                 --------------------
                                 James Steward
                                 Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Knock Out Mouse Phenotyping Program (KOMP2).                    

*Date:*                         March 10, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3100, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3100, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-8837,                         *barbara.thomas@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 12, 2022.

David W. Freeman, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-00900 Filed 1-18-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: John Robert Moore v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-20-00203-CR

Trial court case number: 18-CR-1549

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

On January 6, 2021, appellant’s counsel filed a letter informing the Court that counsel 

intends to seek permanent abatement of this appeal because appellant has died. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 7.1(a)(2) (“If the appellant in a criminal case dies after an appeal is perfected but before the 

appellate court issues the mandate, the appeal will be permanently abated.”). The Court requests 

that counsel file a written update or a motion for permanent abatement by no later than September 

1, 2021.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Gordon Goodman__________

Acting Individually

Date: _August 10, 2021_____________________
Draft Proposal CB-40 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Acceptance of Commissioning Report (CB-40) 

Objective:  Revise the commissioning provision so that buildings cannot be considered for a final

inspection (e.g., do not pass the mechanical inspection) until the owner indicates in writing they have

the required commissioning report.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C408.2.4.1 as follows:

C408.2.4.1 Acceptance of report. Buildings, or portions thereof, shall not be considered acceptable for a 

final inspection pursuant to Section C104.3 pass the final mechanical inspection until such time as the 

code official has received a letter of transmittal from the building owner acknowledging that the building

owner has received the Preliminary Commissioning Report.

Reason:  Clarification.  The current text is essentially instructional to the code official and suggests that

they should not pass the final mechanical inspection until evidence of report receipt has been received.  

The proposed change ties this to the inspection provisions in Chapter 1 of the code and to the final

inspection and approval for occupancy, which better aligns with the intent—the building should not be

approved for occupancy until documentation on the report delivery is received.  In addition, a

determination that preliminary commissioning has been completed before the final inspection should

reduce the burden on the code official because they are conducting the inspection AFTER the

preliminary commissioning.

Cost Impact:   There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-01

Quinshawn A. Roberson 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 49) that the

defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. The court accepts the

defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the information,

and he is hereby adjudged guilty on those counts. The court will

defer the decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until

the sentencing hearing.

Date: February 16, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 06 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (SUBSECTION (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)
 
 
 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350 , chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Subjex Corporation, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company"), does certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that: (1) the 10-QSB Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the 10-QSB Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Company.
 
 
 By /s/ Andrew Hyder
 
 Andrew Hyder, CEO (acting CFO)
 May 14, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

LESLIE M. GURLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 3:17-cv-410 

District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DECISION AND ENTRY 

This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Allowance of Attorney 

Fees. (Doc. #15). Plaintiff indicates that the Commissioner would not stipulate to any 

petition for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in this case. Id. at 1204. The Commissioner 

did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion. 

Plaintiff’s Motion seeks an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in 

the total amount of $9,812.63. In the absence of opposition by the Commissioner, the 

Motion and supporting Exhibits establish that an award of attorney fees is reasonable and 

warranted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the amount the Motion seeks. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Allowance of Attorney Fees (Doc. #15) 

is GRANTED; 

2. The Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) in the total amount of $9,812.63; and 
2

3. The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: June 24, 2019 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4286 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4286

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow a 
local educational agency that receives a subgrant under section 2121 of 
     such Act to use the funds to provide professional development 
 activities that train school personnel about restorative justice and 
                          conflict resolution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 11, 2009

     Mr. Cohen (for himself, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Payne) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow a 
local educational agency that receives a subgrant under section 2121 of 
     such Act to use the funds to provide professional development 
 activities that train school personnel about restorative justice and 
                          conflict resolution.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restorative Justice in Schools Act 
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TRAINING.

    Section 2123(a)(3)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6623(a)(3)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in clause (v), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(vi) provide training about restorative 
                        justice and conflict resolution.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lynn MELTON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

620 S.W. 2d 946

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered September 14, 1981

*Thomas A. Martin,*Jr., for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Atty. Gen., by: *Alice Ann Barns,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Lynn Melton, by his attorney, Thomas A. Martin, Jr., filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. The motion does not contain the necessary affidavit as required by this Court in a Per Curiam order of February 5, 1979, 265 Ark. 964 (1979).

It is the responsibility of the attorney of record to see that the record on appeal is properly maintained. See *Nelson*v. *State, 272*Ark. 287, 613 S.W. 2d 598 (1981) and *Wilson*v. *State,*273 Ark. 456, 620 S.W. 2d 936 (1981).

The motion will be denied without prejudice to file a second time.
Interagency Comments on RIN 2060-AP52 -- Employment Effects 

 Higgins, Cortney 

 to: RobertJ Wayland 

 03/10/2011 09:47 AM 

 Cc: Karen Thundiyil, Thomas Gillis, Tom Walton, Bill Maxwell 

 

1 Attachment 

Chapter 9economicimpactstoxicsruleRIA2-

24versionclean_CommentsUnderEO12866_03122011.docx 

Hi Bob,

Attached you will find a markup to the employment effects section of the RIA.  Please note that the

presentation in the preamble should mirror the final agreed to language in the RIA, or should simply

refer to the RIA (similar to what was done in the Boilers preamble).  Please let me know if you have any

questions.

Regards,

Cortney

________________________________________________

Cortney Higgins 

Policy Analyst 

OMB/OIRA/NRE 

202.395.7856 

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JEWELL E. JONES,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:18-cv-37

vs.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT District Judge Walter H. Rice
OF JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al., Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

Defendants.

TRANSFER ORDER

The above-captioned matter is hereby transferred from the docket of Magistrate Judge
Sharon L. Ovington to the docket of Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

pate: (O~ $-1 @ Lay) EL& a

Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge,

Date: 1211 \% LV \ tn —

Michael &. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Plaintiff,

- vs -

HUGO ALTUNAR-JIMENEZ,

Defendant.

Case No. l;18-cr-025

Also l:21-cv-450

District Judge Susan J. Dlott

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate

Judge Michael R. Merz (ECF No. 86) to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such

objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and

Recommendations.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's § 2255 motion be dismissed with

prejudice, Defendant is DENIED a certificate of appealability and the Court hereby certifies to

the United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore

should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, the Clerk shall enter judgment to this effect.

August JQ_ ., 2021.

District Judge Sijfean J. Dlott

United States District Court

Case: 1:18-cr-00025-SJD-MRM Doc #: 87 Filed: 08/11/21 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 339