alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ringgold vs. Randolph.

Tha statute of limitations, prescribing ten years as the period of presumption of payment of a judgment, having been repealed before any vested right of defence under it, had accrued to the defendant, he can derive no benefit from it under his plea of payment.

*Saire Facias to revive a judgment.*

Eowler, for the plaintiff.

Trapnall, for the defendant.

Mr. Chief Justice English

delivered the opinion of the Court.

At the July Term of this court, 1842, the case of *Ringgold et al. vs. Randolph,*on error to Pulaski Circuit Court, was reversed, and judgment rendered against Randolph, for $15 37 costs.

*213At tbe January Term, 1854, on the suggestion of Ringgold, of the death of his co-plaintiffs in error, and that said judgment for cost remained unsatisfied, a *serie facias*was ordered by the court against Randolph, requiring him to show cause why the judgment should not be revived, and execution issued, in the name of Ringgold, as surviving plaintiff, returnable to July Term, 1854. *Scire facias*was accordingly issued on the 10th of April, 1854.

Randolph pleaded payment, to which issue was taken, and the cause submited at the present term, without any proof of actual payment, the defendant relying upon the presumption of payment arising from lapse of time.

The *2,0th section, chap.*91, *Revised, Statutes,*which was in force when the judgment in this case was rendered, declares, that “every judgment or decree, which may hereafter be rendered in any court of this State, or elsewhere, shall be presumed to be paid and satisfied after the expiration of ten years from the time of rendering the same,” &c.

By *sec.*5, *act oflédh December,*1844, *{Pamphlet Acts,*1844, *p.*25) the above section of the Revised Statutes was expressly repealed., This repeal having been made long before any vested right of defence, under the repealed statute, accrued to the defendant, he- can derive no benefit from it, under his plea of payment in this case.

By the common law, the presumption of payment of a judgment, does not arise until after the lapse of twenty years from the date of the judgment. *Woodruff vs. Sanders as admr., July Term,*1854.

The finding is against the defendant’s plea, and the judgment will be revived, and execution ordered, *&c.*

Absent, Mr. Justice WalKbe.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 77 MM 2019 

v. 

STEFON POWELL, 

Respondent 

Petitioner 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of September, 2019, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
#### Erwin v. Puryear.

(Husband and Wife : *Husband's vested interest in wife's lands: Constitution of*1868: *Act of*1873.

The interest ■which a husband acquired by his marriage in 1866 in the lands oí his wife, was not excluded or affected by the provisions of the constitution of 1868 and the act of April 28,1873, relating to the separate property of married women.

*357APPEAL from *Craighead*Circuit Court.

J. E. Riddick, Judge.

*E. F. Brown,*for appellee.

1. The conveyance was made prior to the *Constitution' of*1874, and hence the husband could convey his estate by curtesy. 38 *Ark.,*91; 39 *Id,*434.

2. The wife failed to schedule as provided by law. Mansf.L *jDig., sec.*4636.

*S. S. Wassell,*for appellant.

1. No title passed by the joining of the wife in the deed. She only acknowledged relinquishment of dower, and she had no dower. The conveyance as to her was-void. 43 *Ark.,*156; 33 IS., 432.

2. The power of the husband, under the common law, to-cón vey his wife’s property during coverture and without her concurrence under his tenancy by curtesy, was abolished by *art.*9, *seo.*7, *Const, of*1874, and *Act of April*28,, 1873, *Neeley v. Lancaster,*47 *Ark.) Const of*1868, *art.*12, *sec.*6.

3. A failure to schedule did not deprive her of the privileges, etc., of *Art.*12, *sec.*6, *Const, of*1868. The registration is only required with reference to the liability of the wife’s separate property for her husband’s debts.

CocKRiLL, C. J.

At the time of the intermarriage of the appellants, in 1866, the wife was seized in fee of the land in controversy. The conveyance by which she acquired the title did not exclude the common law marital rights. In May, 1873, the husband sold the land, the wife joining in the deed apparently for the purpose of' *358relinquishing dower. This action of ejectment was instituted in 1886, by the husband and wife against the pur-'dhaser, from their vendee to recover the land. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant.

It is conceded in the argument that the wife did not •convey her estate, and her counsel argues that the husband had none to convey, because the constitution of 1868 and the act ©f April 28th 1873, made the land her separate property, and excluded the common law marital interest. The case of *Neelly v.*Lancaster, 47 *Arle.,*175, is relied on to sustain the wife’s right to recover. But that case differs from this, as *Skryock v. Cannon,*39 *Ark.,*434, does from *Criscoe v. Hambrick,*47 *Id.,*237. That is, the marital rights having attached before the passage of the ¡act of 1873 and the adoption of the constitution of 1868,' the subsequent laws did not rob the husband of his vested interest. It was so held in the cases above cited and others.

In *Tiller v. McCoy,*38 *Ark.,*91, the same point was ruled, though it would seem that the real question for determi-aation in that case was, whether the creditor (not the fmsband) had a vested right which the subsequent laws affected, *Hitz v. National Bank,*111 *U. S.,*722.

Affirm.
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO



|                                                                                                            |  |  |  |                                                                                                                     
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|SAM S. FERLITA, C.P.A. VINCENT E. WALSH,
C.P.A. FROMENT JOHN GONZALEZ, III, C.P.A. DON F. RODRIGUEZ,
C.P.A. |  |  |  | MEMBERS: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
C.P.A.S S.E.C. AND PRIVATE COMPANIES PRACTICE SECTIONS FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF C.P.A.S

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-3, SEC File No 333-140166 and on Form S-8, SEC File Nos. 333-50325, 333-76038,
333-50343 and 333-134631 of our reports dated February 6, 2009, relating to the financial statements of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and Subsidiaries, and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008.

LOGO

Ferlita, Walsh & Gonzalez, P.A.

3302 Azeele Street

Tampa, Florida 33609

March 11, 2009

3302 Azeele St.  Tampa, FL 33609

(813) 877-9609  Fax: (813) 875-4477
MICHAEL F. BENNET 

COLORADO 

COMMITTEES: 

AGRICULTURE. NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

BANKING. HOUSING. AND 

URBAN AFFAIRS 

HEALTH, EDUCATION. LASOR. 

AND PENSIONS 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

Aloha Ley 

Associate Director 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

8

1

h Floor Room W86-310 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

tinittd ~tatts ~matt WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0609 

June 8, 2012 

WASHINGTON, DC: 

458 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

(202) 224-5852 

COLORADO: 

1127 SHERMAN STREET 

SUITE 150 

DENVER, CO 80203 

(303) 455-7600 

http:/IWHW.bennet.senate.gov 

RE: Telluride Airport's (DUNS # 180571739) application for the Small Community Air Service Development Grant 

Dear Aloha: 

I am pleased to support Telluride Airport's application for the Small Community Air Service Development grant 

from the U.S. Department of Transportation. If approved, funds will be used to secure an additional non-stop 

route to Telluride. 

Specifically this grant will allow a carrier with Q400 aircraft to add service to Telluride from a second non-stop 

destination, other than Denver, and help Telluride climb closer to the 25,000 enplanements the airport saw in the 

1990's. The airport has identified a carrier for this service making these grant funds critical to a successful launch 

of this service in the first year or two, allowing time for the market flight to mature to a sustainable performance 

level. 

While Telluride is a heavily tourism dependent destination where additional air service is needed and would be 

very welcome, the new air service would help make it possible for those looking to do so. In today's global 

economy, world access to the national and international transportation system is critical to a region's economic 

health and ability to diversify its economy. 

I encourage you to give Telluride Airport's application every appropriate consideration consistent with all 

applicable laws and regulations. Thank you for your consideration, and please notify my office of any funds 

awarded. 

Sincerely, 

Michael F. Bennet
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 1 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 2 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 3 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 4 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 5 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 6 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 7 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 8 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 9 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 10 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 11 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 12 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 13 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 14 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 15 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 16 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 17 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 18 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 19 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 20 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 21 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 22 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 23 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 24 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 25 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 26 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 27 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 28 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 29 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 30 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 31 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 32 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 33 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 34 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 35 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 36 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 37 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 38 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 39 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 40 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 41 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 42 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 43 of 44
Case 1:01-cv-00109-SSB Document 59-2 Filed 12/12/2003 Page 44 of 44
PAFT: HFC-125

http://www.afeas.org/paft/hfc-125.html [20/07/2011 17:36:04] 

### Summary of Testing Results HFC-125 has very low acute and subchronic inhalation toxicity. HFC-125 is not a developmental toxicant. HFC-125 is not genotoxic. 

### PAFT Programme for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing

HFC-125 is one of a series of fluorocarbon alternatives being tested by the Programme for Alternative Fluorocarbon Toxicity Testing (PAFT) . HFC-125 is considered primarily as an alternative for refrigeration systems. HFC-125 has very low acute toxicity by inhalation. The lowest concentration that causes mortality in experimental animals -- the approximate lethal concentration (ALC) -- for a 4-hour exposure is greater than 800,000 ppm (80%) with added oxygen. Even at these high inhalation concentrations, no clinical signs of toxicity are evident.As with many other halocarbons and hydrocarbons, inhalation of HFC125, followed by intravenous injection of epinephrine, which simulates human stress reactions, results in a cardiac sensitization response in experimental screening studies with dogs. This cardiac sensitization response is observed at approximately 100,000 ppm of HFC-125, a level well above expected exposures. By comparison, a cardiac sensitization response is observed with CFC-11 at approximately 5,000 ppm. In repeated inhalation exposure studies, the low toxicity of HFC-125 continued to be evident. No adverse effects were observed in rats exposed by inhalation at concentrations of up to 50,000 ppm for up to 90 days. Inhalation developmental toxicity studies with rats and rabbits have been completed. The results indicate that HFC-125 is not teratogenic and does not cause fetal effects at inhalation concentra- tions up to 50,000 ppm. In genetic toxicity testing, HFC-125 was not mutagenic in an Ames assay, Chinese Hamster Ovary assay, or chromosomal aberration study with human lymphocytes. These studies were in vitro assays. Also, HFC-125 was not active in an in vivo mouse micronucleus study. Metabolism studies with HFC-125 have not detected any metabolism. The testing of HFC-125 under PAFT III is now complete. The results are summarized in the sidebar above. An exposure limit for HFC-125 of 1,000 ppm (8-hour time-weighted average) has been recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Workplace Environmental Exposure Limit (WEEL) Committee.
As for all chemicals, PAFT recommends that exposures be kept to a practicable minimum. September 1995

Last updated October 11, 1996
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certifications**
I, Martin A. Durant, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Carmike Cinemas,Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;   b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors:
  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
December 13, 2004 /s/ Martin A. DurantMartin A. DurantSenior Vice President — Finance,Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,155
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,335
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,522
<OTHER-SE>                                    (35,537)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,335
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         183,975
<SECURITIES>                                    37,116
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,034
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               431,894
<PP&E>                                         252,933
<DEPRECIATION>                               (177,997)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 615,305
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          404,265
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,882
<OTHER-SE>                                     205,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   615,305
<SALES>                                        383,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               734,983
<CGS>                                           35,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               483,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,118
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             57,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6552

CHARLIE LEE ROBINSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL; J. R. HUNT, JR., Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-312-1) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charlie Lee Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charlie Lee Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, wedeny Robinson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. North Carolina Attorney Gen. , No. CA-99-312-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2000); see also Williams v. Taylor , 120 S. Ct. 1495, 1523 (2000) (interpreting 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)). We deny Robinson’s motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED