alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of RMS TITANIC, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending February 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2005, (the "Report"), we, the undersigned,
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 our knowledge and
belief, 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.



/s/ Arnie Geller
-------------------------
Arnie Geller
Chief Executive Officer
June 14, 2005


/s/ Gerald Couture
-------------------------
Gerald  Couture
Chief Financial Officer
June 14, 2005
Case 1:01-cv-00082-TSH Document 35 Filed 06/24/2004 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Earnest J. Matthews v. Sherell Randall

Appellate case number: 01-21-00019-CV

Trial court case number: 19-DCV-264316

Trial court: 240th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant Earnest J. Matthews filed a pro se appeal from the trial court’s order signed 

December 17, 2020 dismissing his suit for want of prosecution. The clerk’s record filed in this 

Court includes an “Application to Proceed without Prepayment” that Appellant filed in the trial 

court on July 11, 2019. The clerk’s record does not reflect that any motion to require Appellant 

to pay costs or any contest to Appellant’s declaration was filed. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(f). In 

addition, on February 5, 2021, Appellant filed an “Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis” in 

this Court. 

After considering the documents filed in this proceeding, the Clerk of this Court is 

directed to make an entry in this Court’s records that Appellant is allowed to proceed on

appeal without payment of costs. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(a); TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. 

On September 13, 2021, Appellant filed his appellate brief. The brief does not comply 

with the relevant rules in that it does not:

• contain citations to the record, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d), (f)-(k);

• contain an appendix, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(k); or

• contain the identity of parties and counsel, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(a).

Accordingly, the brief is stricken. Appellant must file a corrected brief in compliance 

with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, including citations to the record, an appendix, and 

the identifies of parties and counsel. The deadline for filing the corrected brief is November 

15, 2021.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

 Acting individually 

Date: October 14, 2021
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1695

MICHAEL J. SINDRAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

S. RANDOLPH SENGEL; DIETRA Y. TRENT; MARK R.

WARNER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-1)

Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Sindram, Appellant Pro Se. Alexander Francuzenko,

O’CONNELL & SARSFIELD, Rockville, Maryland; Martha Murphey Parrish,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael J. Sindram appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration for lack of jurisdiction.

We vacate the district court’s order and remand for consideration

of the motion on the merits.

After the district court dismissed Sindram’s complaint,

Sindram timely noted an appeal. Subsequently, Sindram filed a

motion construed by the district court as a motion for

reconsideration. Believing that the notice of appeal divested it

of jurisdiction to consider the motion, the district court denied

the motion.

This court has declared that “when a Rule 60(b) motion is

filed while a judgment is on appeal, the district court has

jurisdiction to entertain the motion, and should do so promptly.”

Fobian v. Storage Tech. Corp., 164 F.3d 887, 891 (4th Cir. 1999).

In Fobian, this Court instructed as to the following when a Rule

60(b) motion is filed after an appeal has been noted:

[i]f the district court determines that the motion is

meritless, as experience demonstrates is often the case,

the court should deny the motion forthwith; any appeal

from the denial can be consolidated with the appeal from

the underlying order. If the district court is inclined

to grant the motion, it should issue a short memorandum

so stating. The movant can then request a limited remand

from this court for that purpose. By saving judicial

resources and avoiding expense and delay, this procedure

accords with the overarching mandate in the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure that the rules “shall be construed to

secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of

every action.”
- 3 -

Id. at 891.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying

the motion for reconsideration and remand for consideration of the

motion on the merits. In so doing, we express no opinion as to the

merits of the motion. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
# 1+1 T ra n sport Canada T ransports Canada TP 724 5E No
. 1 111 CF -2007-21 Issue Date 13 September 2007 

# AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

**~~~ ~~~**  **~~;,~ ~~~i**  **g~~) ~~**  **j~tip~r1~~~t~6Y c~~**  **~~ b~~J**  **th~n ~~~~~~~i~h** 

**a~ tA~**  **c~~ ~~~**  **~~ ~~s**  **5**

**eg~ ~~i**  **~d ~**  **t~~u~o~~~u~ng ~f~6~hi~~~~e2t**  **~u2~~~~ !~**  **~?~ ~~**  **:d** aircraft is contingent upon compl i ance with all app l icable A Ds . Fa ilure to comply with the requirements of an

**~8** may i n validate the flight authorization of the aircraft
. Alternat ive means of comp l iance shall be appl ied for i n accordance with CAR 605.84 and the above - referenced Standard
. This AD has been issued by the Cont i nu i ng A i rworthiness Di vi s ion (AARDG ) , A i rcraft Certification Branch , Transp o rt Canada , Ottawa , te l ephone (613 ) 952-4 35 7 . 

### URGE N T U RGE N T U RGE N T URGENT U RGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT TRA NSPORT CANADA EMERGENCYAIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE PLEASE FORWARD IMMEDIATELY TO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATIO N AND MAINTENANCE OF YOUR AIRCRAFT Number: Subject: Effective: Applicability: Compliance: Background:
Corrective Actions: CF-2007-21 Tail Rotor Blades Upon receipt Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) all helicopter Models : 206 series, 222 series , 230 , 407 , 427 and 430 Before further flight unless already accomplished
. There were three reports of balance weights departing from the tail rotor blades during flight. The cause has been narrowed down to missing weight screws . This failure can happen at any time
. Verify if the affected blades are installed on the helicopter as per applicable Alert Service Bulleting (ASB) listed below , or later revisions approved by Chief , Continuing Airworthiness , Transport Canada. Remove the affected blades before further flight and replace with airworthy parts . Helicopter Model Alert Service Bulletin Date 206 series 206-07-116 11 September 2007 206L series 206L-07-148 11 September 2007 222 and 222B 222-07-106 11 September 2007 222U 222U-07-77 11 September 2007 230 230 - 07-38 1 1 September 2007 407 407-07 - 81 11 September 2007 427 427-07-18 11 September 2007 430 430-07-41 11 September 2007 Au t horiz ati o n: For Ministe r of Trans po rt
B
. Goyaniuk Chief , Cont i nuing Airworthiness Contact: M r. Bogdan Gajewski , Continuing Airworthiness , Ottawa , telephone (613) 952 -4450 , facsimile (613) 996-9178 or e-mail gajewsb@tc
.gc .ca or any Transport Canada Centre
.
Pursuant to CAR 202
. 51 the registered owner of a Canadian ai rcraft shall , within seven days , notify the Minis ter in writing of any change of his or her nam e o r address
. T o req u est a ch a nge of address , contact the Civ il Avi ation Communications Cent r e (AARA ) at Place de V i lle , Ottawa , Ontari o K1A ONB , or 1-800 - 305-2059
. 24-0022 (01-2001) This document is available on the web at : http ://www.tc.gc.ca/aviatio n/ad/ad_e. htm 

# Canada
v422440_ex4-1 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing



 


Exhibit 4.1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-34

Son Minh Le 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 30) that the

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

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on that count. The court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: March 23, 2018 s\James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OFREGISTRANT**

 

**Subsidiaries of DeCraneAircraft Holdings, Inc.**

 

AUDIOINTERNATIONAL, INC., an Arkansas corporation.

 

CARLF. BOOTH & CO., LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

 

DECRANEAIRCRAFT SEATING COMPANY, INC., a Wisconsin corporation.

 

DECRANECABIN INTERIORS - CANADA, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

 

HOLLINGSEADINTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation.

 

PATSAIRCRAFT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

 

PCINEWCO, INC., a Kansas corporation.

 

PRECISIONPATTERN, INC., a Kansas corporation.

 

----
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1501

JOHN E. DRISCOLL, III; ROBERT E. FRAZIER; JANA M. GANTT; LAURA D. HARRIS; KIMBERLY LANE; DEENA L. REYNOLDS , Plaintiffs

- Appellees ,

v. RENEE L. MCCRAY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 01791

- GLR )

Submitted : August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Renee L. McCray , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harvey Hillman , SAMUEL I. WHITE PC , Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees

. Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Renee L. McCray seeks to appeal the district court’s order remanding this foreclosure proceeding to the Maryland state court from which it was removed. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2012). The Supreme Court has instructed that “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with [28 U.S.C.] § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 144 7(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , 516 U.S. 124, 127 (1995). Thus, “ § 1447(d) is tightly circumscribed to cover only remand orders within the scope of

. . . § 1447(c), based on (1) a district court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction or (2) a defect in removal other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. . . . ” Doe v. Blair , 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Whether a district court’s remand order is reviewable under § 1447(d) is not determined by whether the order explicitly cites § 1447(c) or not.” Borneman v. United States , 213 F.3d 81 9, 824 (4th Cir. 2000). Here, the district court remanded on the basis that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to review the remand order and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00458- CV

Am y Lynn Dayringer, A ppellan t

v. Gar ed Dayringer, A ppellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F MI LAM CO UNTY, 20TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CV34,4 54, H ONO RAB LE JO HN Y OUNGB LOO D, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The appellate rec ord must include the cler k’s rec ord from the trial court. The cler k’s 1
rec ord in this cause was due in t h is Court on September 18, 2015, but no rec ord was filed. We
rec eived notice from the Milam County district cler k’s office on October 2, 2015, that appellant has neither paid nor made a

rra ng ement for

pay ment of the re cord. N or has a ppellant filed an aff

idavit of indig ence . 2 Under these circ umstances, this Court may dismiss the appea l for want of prosec ution. On October 5, 2015, we se nt notice to appellant that the c lerk’s r ecor d was ove rdue

3 and that the appea l may be dismiss ed for want of prosec ution if appellant did not make arr ang ements

See Tex. R. App. P . 34.1, 34.5(a)
. 1 See id. R. 20.1(2). 2 See id. R. 37.3(b). 3for t h e re co rd and submit a status repor t to this Court on or befor e October 15, 2015. To date, appellant has not responde d in any way and the cler k’s rec ord has not be en filed. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appe al for w ant of prose cution. 4

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Nove mber 10, 2015

See id. R. 37.3(b), 42.3(b) , (c)
. 4 2
#### Kraus v Seaton SSK Engineering,

No. 90924;

Court of Appeals

No. 134387.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4164 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to provide for a phasedin increase of chargeable premium rates for properties affected by updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2009 

Mr. HERGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to 

provide for a phased-in increase of chargeable premium 

rates for properties affected by updated Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PHASE-IN OF ACTUARIAL FLOOD INSURANCE 

4 RATES FOR PROPERTIES NEWLY DETER5 MINED TO BE IN A FLOOD RISK ZONE. 

6 Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 

7 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4164 IH

1 (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘limitation 

2 under subsection (e)’’ and inserting ‘‘limitations 

3 under subsection (e) and (g)’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub5 section: 

6 ‘‘(g) PREMIUM ADJUSTMENT FOR PROPERTIES

7 MAPPED INTO A HIGHER-RISK FLOOD ZONE.—An in8 crease in the risk premium rate charged for flood insur9 ance coverage of a property covered by a flood insurance 

10 policy issued under this Act on the date of the completion 

11 of an update to a Flood Insurance Rate Map that is the 

12 result of such update shall be limited to an annual in13 crease for five years of 20 percent per year of the dif14 ference between— 

15 ‘‘(1) the risk premium rate otherwise charge16 able pursuant to such update; and 

17 ‘‘(2) the chargeable risk premium rate for such 

18 property that existed before such update.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 1 of 17 PAGEID #: 1
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 2 of 17 PAGEID #: 2
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 3 of 17 PAGEID #: 3
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 4 of 17 PAGEID #: 4
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 5 of 17 PAGEID #: 5
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 6 of 17 PAGEID #: 6
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 7 of 17 PAGEID #: 7
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 8 of 17 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 9 of 17 PAGEID #: 9
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 10 of 17 PAGEID #: 10
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 11 of 17 PAGEID #: 11
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 12 of 17 PAGEID #: 12
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 13 of 17 PAGEID #: 13
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 14 of 17 PAGEID #: 14
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 15 of 17 PAGEID #: 15
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 16 of 17 PAGEID #: 16
Case: 3:17-mj-00560-MJN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/06/17 Page: 17 of 17 PAGEID #: 17
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

January 9 , 201 4

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 01014

- CR NO. 14

- 13

- 01015

- CR

IN RE ESEQ UIEL OCHOA , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 263rd District Court Ha rris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 983043 and 1026778



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 13, 2013, relator Esequiel Ochoa filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, r elator asks this Court to compel one or more respondents
whose identit ies are unclear to provide a copy of the record in relator’s underlying criminal cases at the State’s expense

.2

Our mandamus jurisdiction is limited. By statute, we have authority to issu e a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in our court of appeals district, and as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Relator does not identify as a respondent a judge of a district

or co unty court. Relator appears to direct his request for relief against the Harris County District Clerk, but also may be requesting relief against the Clerk of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, the Clerk of this Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Harri s County District Attorney, relator’s appointed defense counsel
, or some combination thereof

. Regardless of which of the foregoing potential respondents are the intended respondent s , issuance of the writ against any of these named parties is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John A.
Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
      Company.




/s/John A.
      MooreJohn
      A. MooreChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      13, 2009
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 23, 2020

a1216

Order 

Clerk

December 23, 2020

161864

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161864

COA: 353493

Oakland CC: 2019-271381-FC

MATTHEW ALLEN WAGNER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 16, 2020 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Page *v.*State.

Opinion delivered March 10, 1930.

*315
      *Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, and *Pal Me-haffy,*Assistant, for appellee.

McHaney, J.

Appellant and two others were charged in the indictments, each containing two counts, with burglary and grand larceny. On his motion to sever, appellant was tried separately, and by consent the two cases were consolidated. He was convicted on both counts in both indictments, and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

He has not favored us with a brief in his behalf. The first three assignments of error in the motion for a new trial challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. We have read the abstract of the evidence prepared by the Attorney General, and find it amply sufficient without reference to the testimony of the two accomplices who were jointly indicted with him. We think it would serve no useful purpose to review it, and therefore refrain from doing so.

The next assignment of error is “that the court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney * * * to prove statements made by other persons when the defendant was not present at the time of the alleged statements. ’ ’ The record fails to disclose any such statements, but, even conceding that it did, this assignment is toe-indefinite to bring to the attention of the court any particular statement complained of. A witness was permitted to testify that the two accomplices had made statements in appellant’s presence, but the witness did not state what the statements were. There is no merit to this assignment.

It is next assigned that the court erred in permitting the State to prove that various stolen articles were found in the possession of persons other than appellant. *316Some of the stolen articles were found in possession of appellant, and some in possession of the other accomplices. The rule that the acts, conduct and declarations of one co-conspirator, after the accomplishment of the purpose of the conspiracy, are not admissible as against another conspirator has never been extended so as to exclude proof of such facts. The exact question was decided against appellant in *Wiley*v. *State,*92 Ark. 586, 124 S. W. 249.

The last assignment that the court erred in giving instructions numbered “............” to the jury cannot be considered, as it points out no particular instruction, is too general, and is the same as if it had said the court erred in giving instructions.

Judgment affirmed.