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

#### State *v.*Davis *et al.*

Submitted June 6, 1901.

Decided November 16, 1901.

*Contempt*— Trial—Evidence—Beasonahle *Doiibt.*

On trial of persons charged -with contempt in disobeying an injunction, the evidence must he sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise the rule should be discharged. (p. 100).

Error to Circuit Court, Pleasants County.

Miles Davis and others were found guilty of contempt, and bring error.

*Reversed.*

Howard *&*HaNDLAN, for plaintiff in error.

R. H. Freer, Attt. Geni, and Alex DuliN, for the State.

DbNT, Judge:

Miles Davis, J. J. Mahoney and Harry Cheeny complain of the judgment of the circuit court of Pleasants County rendered on the 21st day of December, 1899, adjudging them guilty of contempt of such court in violating an injunction thereof prohibiting them from selling intoxicating liquors at a certain house in St. Marys and sentencing them to six months’ imprisonment therefor. ,

The defendants insist that the evidence is wholly insufficient to justify the finding of the court. A careful examination of the evidence, which is too voluminous to set out at length, fully sustains their contention. It proves sales made before, but none made by them or for which they were responsible after the injunction was served. There are some suspicious circumstances sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to their entire innocence, but wholly insufficient to overcome the presumption in their favor, and establish their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It is shown that some persons unknown, did make sales of intoxicants after the service of the injunction at the inhibited place, but the evidence wholly fails to connect such persons in any manner with these defendants. It is also shown that J. J. Ma-*101honey confessed before the mayor of St. Marys on the 21st day of November, 1899, the day after the injunction was served on him to ten illegal sales and was fined therefor, but this undoubtedly according to the testimony of the mayor was for sales made prior to that date, and before service of the injunction.

The circuit court evidently failed to give the defendants the benefit of the legal presumption in their favor, and hence he reached an erroneous conclusion. *State*v. *Ralphsnyder,*34 W. Va. 352; *State*v. *Cunningham,*33 W. Va. 607.

My associates concur in the reversal of this case and the discharge of the rule not because of the insufficiency of the evidence but because the rule does not set out with sufficient certainty in what respect or manner defendants had violated the injunction so as to render themselves liable to the charge of contempt and this is such error as calls for reversal by this Court although this question is raised here for the first time. *Old*v. *Commonwealth,*8 Grat. 915.

The judgment is reversed and the rule discharged.

*Reversed.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08106]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee; Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(A) (2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a 
meeting of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) 
Advisory Committee.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME:  Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee

TIME AND DATE:  April 22, 2015--9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Place: Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW.,--Round Room (10th Floor), Washington, DC 20591
    Purpose: The meeting agenda will include receiving from the 
Committee guidance for FAA's research and development investments in 
the areas of air traffic services, airports, aircraft safety, human 
factors and environment and energy. Attendance is open to the 
interested public but seating is limited. Persons wishing to attend the 
meeting or obtain information should contact Chinita A. Roundtree-
Coleman at (609) 485-7149 or chinita.roundtree-coleman@faa.gov. Members 
of the public may present a written statement to the Committee at any 
time.
    Issued in Washington, DC on March 25, 2015.

Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman,
Computer Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2015-08106 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of  Genus,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries  on  Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-28394, 33-38657,
33-56192,  333-29999,  and  333-70815)  and Form S-3 (File No. 333-48021) of our
reports  dated  February  3,  1999  on  our audits of the consolidated financial
statements  and  financial statement schedule of Genus, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of  December  31,  1998  and 1997, and for each of the three years in the period
ended  December  31,  1998,  which reports are included in this Annual Report on
Form  10-K.


/s/  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS  LLP
--------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers  LLP

San  Jose,  California
March  31,  1999
Exhibit 32.1

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

Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (Section  1350 of
Chapter  63 of Title 18 of the  United  States  Code),  each of the  undersigned
officers of AGU  Entertainment  Corp.  (the  "Company") does hereby certify with
respect to the  Quarterly  Report of the  Company on Form  10-QSB for the period
ending June 30, 2005 (the "Report") 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.

August 19, 2005                        /s/ David C. Levy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Name: David C. Levy
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      Title: Chief Executive Officer

August 19, 2005                       /s/ John W. Poling
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Name:  John W. Poling
                                      Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief
                                      Financial Officer

     The foregoing  certification  is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the  United  States  Code) and is not being  filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.



                                       28
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5355 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5355

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 
                    tax for volunteer firefighters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2006

   Ms. Hart introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against 
                    tax for volunteer firefighters.

    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 ``Volunteer Firefighter Recruitment 
and Retention Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS.

    (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable 
personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 25D the 
following new section:

``SEC. 25E. CREDIT FOR VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS.

    ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of a volunteer firefighter, 
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
chapter the credit amount determined under subsection (b).
    ``(b) Credit Amount.--With respect to a taxable year, the credit 
amount determined under this subsection is--
            ``(1) in the case of a volunteer firefighter who has 
        completed 3 or more years of service as a volunteer firefighter 
        during the taxable year, $1,000, and
            ``(2) in the case of a volunteer firefighter who has 
        completed 8 or more years of service as a volunteer firefighter 
        during the taxable year, $1,500.
    ``(c) Volunteer Firefighter.--For purposes of this section, the 
term `volunteer firefighter' means an individual who is a member in 
good standing of a qualified volunteer fire department (as defined in 
section 150(e)).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of 
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to section 25D the following new 
item:

``Sec. 25E. Credit for volunteer firefighters.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2484

FREDA J. DAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-96-3) Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 16, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freda J. Day, Appellant Pro Se. Parmele Prince Calame, Megan Tedrick, POYNER & SPRUILL, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Karla Kies Longoria, J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC., Plano, Texas, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Freda J. Day appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant on her Title VII claim of employment discrimination and hostile work environment based on race and gender. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeDay v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc. , No. CA-03-96-3 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6538

ANTHONY SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES COMPANY, Nestle

USA, PC Claims Department,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-99-394-2)

Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 11, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Smith appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing

as frivolous his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.

We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and dismissal order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Constitution

State Servs. Co., No. CA-99-394-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
      32.2














**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 of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I, L.P.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Robert K. Moskovitz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








November
      14, 2005   /s/
      Robert K. Moskovitz


Robert
      K.
      Moskovitz


Chief
      Financial
      Officer
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002. 

*The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:*

The Commission will consider whether to propose short sale price test rules. 

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: March 13, 2009. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Deputy Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E9-5932 Filed 3-16-09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

, 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.

August 12, 2016 

# Order

August 12 , 2016

153115 (65)

153117

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 153115

v COA: 323642

Kent CC: 14

- 003216

- FH

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 153117

v COA: 323643

Kent CC: 14

- 003215

- FH

TODD RANDOLPH VAN DOORNE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the American Civil Liberties Union to

file a brief amicus curiae in support of the applications for leave to appeal is GRANTED.

The amicus brief submitted on July 28, 2016, is accepted for filing.
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51653 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51654 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51655 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51656 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51657 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51658 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51659 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51660 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51661 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51662 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51663 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51664 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51665 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51666 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51667 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51668 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51669 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51670 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51671 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51672 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51673 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51674 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51675 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51676 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51677 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51678 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51679 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51680 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51681 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51682 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51683 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51684 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51685 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51686 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51687 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51688 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51689 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51690 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51691 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51692 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51693 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51694 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51695 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51696 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51697 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51698 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51699 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51700 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51701 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51702 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51703 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51704 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51705 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51706 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51707 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51708 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51709 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51710 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51711 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51712 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51713 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51714 1989
HeinOnline -- 54 Fed. Reg. 51715 1989
Steven HAYWOOD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. ED 104883

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: November 14, 2017

Randall Brachman, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Movant/Appellant.

Dora A. Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent/Respondent.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Steven Haywood appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, following an evidentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule *25029.15.1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. 2015, unless otherwise indicated.
Exhibit 13.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
 PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of China Networks International Holdings Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Li Shuangqing, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 of the Company as of December 31, 2011 and results of operations of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
 
 /s/ Li ShuangqingName:
Li ShuangqingTitle:

Date:
Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2012
 
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this annual report or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1377

GEDION TAMRAT, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 18, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David Allen Garfield, Catherine A. Reynolds, LAW OFFICES OF 

DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan K. Houser, Senior Litigation 

Counsel, W. Daniel Shieh, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Gedion Tamrat, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his 

applications for relief from removal. 

 Tamrat challenges the determination that he failed to 

establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a 

determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must 

show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no 

reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of 

persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 

(1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude 

that Tamrat fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary 

result. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
MEMORANDUM

TO: File

FROM: George Faison

SUBECT: Presentation to EJ Roundtable

A presentation was made on January 27, 2010 to the Environmental Justice Rounstable in New Orlean, Lousiana to provide an overview of the upcoming proposed rule Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes. The presentation focused on the following topics:

• Background and Purpose of the Rule

• Overview of the January 2, 2009 Adva nce Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• Environmental Justice Analyses

• Next Steps