alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHARLESTON.

#### State v. Webb Holesapple.

Submitted January 10, 1923.

Decided January 16, 1923.

Criminal *Law*— •Violation *of Prohibitory Law Offense Against State and Federal Governments and Conviction by one not bar to Prosecution by Other.*

The double jeopardy provision of section 3 of article 5 of our constitution can not be invoked as a defense by one indicted under the state statute, upon the ground that the accused had been previously indicted, tried and convicted under a federal statute malting it an offense to commit the same act made punishable by the state statute.

(McGinnis, Judge, absent).

Case Certified from Circuit Court, Mason County.

Webb Holesapple was indicted for a violation of tbe Prohibition Law, and an order sustaining tbe State’s demurrer to tbe defendant’s plea in bar was certified for review.

*Affirmed.*

*E. T. England,*Attorney General, and *R. A. Blessing,*Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State.

*646Miller, President:

To the indictment, in two counts, the defendant interposed his special plea in bar, to which the State demurred, and the circuit court sustained the demurrer and certified the questions arising thereon to us, pursuant to the statute.

Each count charged that defendant, at the October term 1917, of the Intermediate Court of Kanawha County, was indicted, and at the February term 1918 thereof, was convicted of the offense charged, of bringing and carrying into the State and from ene place to another within the State more than one quart of whiskey, to-wit, twenty-four pints, and was adjudged to be imprisoned for the period of four months and to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, and that' the said defendant did en the .. day of August 1921, feloniously and unlawfully carry from one place to another in the State more than one quart of whiskey, to-wit; one hundred quarts, contrary to the statute, etc.

To this indictment defendant interposed a special plea in bar, alleging that prior to the finding of said indictment, he had been indicted, tried and convicted in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of West Virginia, for the very same act and transaction with which he stood charged in the indictment in this case, and that he was not liable to be indicted and put upon trial a second time for the same offense for which he had been tried and convicted in the federal court.

There can be no' doubt about the correctness of the ruling of the circuit court upon defendant’s plea. It was decided by us in the recent case of *State*v. *Henson,*91 W. Va. 701, 114 S. E. Rep. 273, and more recently by the Federal Supreme Court, (that the double jeopardy provisions of the state and federal constitutions have no application except in cases arising under the same sovereignty; that the same acts or transactions may constitute offenses under the laws of each, without infringing the constitution. *United States*v. *Vito Lanza et al.,*.. U. S. .., 67 Law Ed. ...

*647Upon these cases we must affirm the ruling of the circuit court, and will so certify.

*Affirmed.*
ACE USA Supplemental Employee Retirement Savings Plan



 Exhibit 10.39 
 APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ACE USA SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN 
 WHEREAS, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”) maintains the ACE USA Supplemental Employee Retirement Savings Plan (the “Plan”), which was restated and amended effective January 1, 2009;
and 
 WHEREAS, earlier changes to the Plan and the Corporation’s qualified retirement plans provide lower employer
matching contribution rates for employees hired during 2009 or later; and 
 WHEREAS, the Corporation desires a way to permit
additional contributions to be credited for certain selected individuals who receive these lower contribution rates at the discretion of the Corporation’s senior management. 
 NOW THEREFORE, RESOLVED, that by virtue and in exercise of the amending power reserved to the Corporation under the Plan, the Plan shall be,
and hereby is, amended in the following particulars: 
 1. Effective as of January 1, 2009, by creating a new Section 3.5 which reads
as follows: 
 “3.5 Additional Employer Contributions. At the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company or senior management to whom the CEO has delegated this authority, a contribution may be credited under the Plan in an amount and under such conditions as are imposed by the CEO, his delegate or the ACE USA Retirement Committee.”
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 54 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 54

To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide reasonable standards 
         for congressional gold medals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

  Mr. Castle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide reasonable standards 
         for congressional gold medals, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. REASONABLE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDALS.

    Section 5111 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Congressional Gold Medal Standards.--
            ``(1) Maximum number.--During any calendar year beginning 
        after December 31, 2005, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
        strike not more than 2 congressional gold medals for 
        presentation pursuant to an Act of the Congress.
            ``(2) Program requirements.--The Secretary may strike 
        congressional gold medals only in accordance with the following 
        requirements:
                    ``(A) Recipients.--Only an individual may be a 
                recipient of a congressional gold medal.
                    ``(B) Timing.--No gold medal may be presented 
                posthumously on behalf of any individual except during 
                the 20-year period beginning 5 years after the death of 
                the individual (unless the Act of Congress authorizing 
                the striking of such medal was enacted before the death 
                of such individual)''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-585
In Re: CHARLES WILLIAM LEVY, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles William Levy, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Charles Levy has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the Virginia State Board ofElections to place his name on the ballot for governor in the upcoming gubernatorial election. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has "no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires" and that his right to such relief is "clear and indisputable." Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Levy has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T L UC I O R E YE S MAZ ON , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 70562 A ge nc yN o. A 091- 780- 709 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L uc i o R e y e s M a z on, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i ons f or cancel l at i on of re m ov aland adj ustm entof st atus. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 

# FI LED SEP 21 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 70562 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew for s ub st ant i alevi dence the agency’ s f ac tual d e te rm in a tio n s , H

erna ndezv. Mukasey , 3 4 5 F . 3 d8 2 4 , 8 4 3 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) a n dwe r e v ie w d e n o v o du e p r o c e s s c la im s , Ca n o Me r i da v . I NS , 3 1 1 F .3 d9 6 0 , 9 6 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e a gree thatR ey es M az on has notm ethi s burden t o est abl i sh thathe w as the be ne f i c i aryof a n appr ove d vi s ape t i t i on; ar e qui r e m e ntf orhi s appl i c a t i on f

or a d ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s to p r o c e e d . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 5 ( i) ( B ) ; cf . H erna ndez , 345 F .3 da t 8 4 3 . C ontr aryt o R e y e s M a z on’ s c ont e nt i on, the B I A pr ope r l yc onc l ude d tha tthe IJdi d n otvi ol at e due process by no ti nform i ng R ey es M az on of hi s e l i gi bi l i ty f or a S e c t i on 212( h) w a i ve r , be c aus e the w a i ve rw a s notappl i c abl e t o the gr ound of in a d m is s ib ilityw ith w h ic h R e y e s M a z o n w a s c h ar g e d . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 18 2(h); L a ta v . I NS , 2 0 4 F . 3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (h o l d i n g p et i t i o n er m u st d e m o n s tr a te e rr o ra n ds ub s tan tia l p r e ju d ic e to p r e v a il o n adu e p r o c e s s c la im ) . R e y e s M a z o n d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e a g e n c y ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t h e is s ta tu to r ilyin e lig ib le to s h o w g o o dm o r a l c h ar a c te rs o th a t c o n te n tio n is w a iv e d . Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rra n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 12 56 , 12 59 -60 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
ex10-18.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.18

    October
15, 2009

    


    


    


    Mr. J.
Bennett Johnston, Jr.

    1317
Merrie Ridge Road

    McLean,
Virginia  22101

    


    Dear Mr.
Johnston:

    


    Supplemental
Agreement Providing an Extension to the

    Consulting
Agreement of January 7, 1997

    


    This
Supplemental Agreement refers to the consulting agreement of January 7, 1997
(the "Consulting Agreement"), as amended, with the undersigned, FM Services
Company (the "Company"), with respect to your performance of consulting services
for FM Services and its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively with FM
Services, the "Freeport Entities").

    


    By way of
this Supplemental Agreement, the Company would like to extend your Consulting
Agreement from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.  All other
terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement, as amended, shall remain
unchanged.

    


    Please
confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding with respect
to this matter by signing both originals of this Supplemental Agreement and
returning one to me.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    


    
      /s/ Richard C.
Adkerson

    

    Richard
C. Adkerson

    Chairman
of the Board

    FM
Services Company

    


    


    AGREED
TO AND ACCEPTED

    


    


    BY:    
/s/ J. Bennett
Johnston, Jr

    J.
Bennett Johnston, Jr.

    


    


    DATE:   11/06/09
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5381]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Farm Credit Administration Board; Regular Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the regular meeting of the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME:  The regular meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on March 
12, 2009, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its 
business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roland E. Smith, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY (703) 883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting of the Board will be open to 
the public (limited space available). In order to increase the 
accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should 
make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the 
meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

    <bullet> February 12, 2009.

B. New Business

    <bullet> Director Elections-Proposed Rule.

    Dated: March 6, 2009.
Gaye Calhoun,
Acting Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. E9-5381 Filed 3-9-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
No. 09-9469.

#### Gregory Lawrence Henderson, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

560 U.S. 908, 130 S. Ct. 3279,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1189,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 4002.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5434 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5434

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and six

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, as the ``Larry Cox Post 
                                Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LARRY COX POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Larry Cox Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Larry Cox 
Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 32.1
**Certification of thePresident and Chief Executive Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350**
     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, theundersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,that the AnnualReport on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year endedMarch 31, 2004(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
*/s/ Ronald Mustari*Ronald Mustari
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICEROF PACIFIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT LLCPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350 and in connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly periodended March 31, 2006 that is being filed concurrently with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersignedofficer of Pacific Energy Management LLC, general partner of PacificEnergy GP, LP which is the general partner of Pacific Energy Partners, L.P. andSubsidiaries (the “Partnership”) hereby certifies that:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

|        | /s/ GERALD A  TYWONIUK |
|--------|------------------------|
|   | Gerald A. Tywoniuk     |
|   | May 10, 2006      |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Energy Partners, L.P.,and will be retained by Pacific Energy Partners, L.P., and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Jean Caillet, Chief Executive Officer, of the Registrant, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this amendment No. 1
to the annual report on Form 10-KSB of BBJ Environmental Technologies, Inc.;



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure control and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entitles, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the
effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and



c) disclosed in
this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occured during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.





5. The Registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.





|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2004 |  | /s/    JEAN
CAILLET                  
|                   |  | Jean Caillet, Chief Executive Officer
ORR STREET LOFTS, LLC, Respondent, v. Shey M. STONER and Chance E. Shoemaker, Appellants.

WD 80742

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: March 6, 2018

Zachary Sanders, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Appellants.

Michael Whitworth, Columbia, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Jill Jackson, Columbia, MO, Co-Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, P.J., Victor C. Howard, and Cynthia L. Martin, JJ.

**ORDER**

Per Curiam:

Ms. Shey M. Stoner and Mr. Chance E. Shoemaker appeal a Boone County Circuit Court judgment awarding more than $14,000 to the owner of an apartment they leased but never occupied. For reasons stated in the memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Nancy L. Sisto, Respondent, v Airborne Freight Corporation et al., Appellants, Town of Smithtown, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[720 NYS2d 356]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Airborne Freight Corporation and William J. Barry appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated October *56614, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant Town of Smithtown for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and (2) from a judgment of the same court dated November 4, 1999, which, upon the order, dismissed the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against that defendant.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as, upon the order, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Town of Smithtown, is dismissed on the ground that the appellants are not aggrieved by that portion of the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant-respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The provision of the Code of Town of Smithtown requiring 15 days prior written notice applies to the alleged defect in this case and precludes a finding of liability on the cross claims against the Town of Smithtown in the absence of such notice *(see,*Code of Town of Smithtown § 245-13; *Poirier v City of Schenectady, 85*NY2d 310; *Burgess v Town of Hempstead,*161 AD2d 616).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.