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

*Perjury.*

(Decided Jan. 22, 1907.

42 So. Rep. 996.)

*Criminal Law; Instructions; Character of Accused.*— A cliarge asserting that defendant may offer proof of his good character, and that such proof taken in connection with all the evidence in the case, may be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant; and one asserting that proof of good character, in connection with all the other evidence, may gen*33erate a reasonable doubt, which entitled the defendant to an acquittal, even though without such proof of good character the jury would convict; both state correct propositions of law, and their refusal was error.

Appeal from Conecuh Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. C. Richardson.

Tlie defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted on the charge of perjury. The evidence was. in conflict as to whether or not the defendant gave the testimony that the indictment alleges he gave, and as to whether or not it was true or false. At the conclusion of the testimony the defendant requested the following charges, which the court refused to give: Charge 2: “The court charges the jury that the defendant may offer proof of his good character, and that such proof, taken in connection with all the evidence in’ the case, may he sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant.” Charge 3: “The court charges the jury that proof of good character, in connection with all the other evidence, may generate a reasonable doubt, which entitles the defendant to an acquittal, even though without such proof of good character the jury would convict.”

C. S. Rabb, for appellant. Charge 2 requested by the defendant should have been *given.*—

Goldsmith *v. The State,*105 Ala. 8; *Scott v. The State,*105 Alla. 57; *Webb v. The State,*106 Ala. 52; *Crawford v. The Statem,*112 Ala. 1; *Miller v. The State,*107 Ala. 40. The 3rd charge should have been *given.*— Garson *v. The State,*50 Ala. 135; *Armour v. The State,*63 Ala. 173. The charge as to good character should have been *given.*— Bryant *v. The State,*116 Ala. 445. . ■

Massey Wilson,' Attorney-General, for- State..

No brief came to the reporter.

SIMPSON, J. —

The defendant was convicted of the offense of perjury, and sentenced to five years in the penitentiary. There was evidence tending to show the good character of the defendant, and charge 2, requested by the defendant, is a correct statement of the law; hence *34the court erred in refusing to give the *same.*— Goldsmith *v. The State,*105 Ala. 8, 16 South. 933; *Miller v. State,*107 Ala. 40, 59, 19 South. 37; *Newsom v. State,*107 Ala. 134, 135, 138, 139, 18 Soth. 206; *Bryant v. State,*116 Ala. 446, 448, 452, 23 South. 40.

Charge 3, requested by the defendant, should have been *given.*— Bryant *v. State,*116 Ala. 446, 23 South. 40.

The judgment of the court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Haralson and Denson, JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Cereal Crops Improvement Research: Fargo, ND
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Fargo, North Dakota Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center Cereal Crops Improvement Research People & Locations







Cayley  Steen
                        Cereal Crops Improvement Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Aid
                        Phone: (701) 239-1343
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Vegetable Research: Charleston, SC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Cucurbit Genetics CooperativeSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Charleston, South Carolina Vegetable Research People & Locations







James  Dann
                        Vegetable Research

                        




                        
                        Administrative Officer
                        Phone: (843) 669-5203
                         ext. 103
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Amran Ali Al HARBI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-3808.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2011.

*497Elaine Cheung, Philadelphia, PA. for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Amran Ali A Harbi (“A Har-bi”), a native and citizen of Yemen, seeks review of an August 23, 2010, order of the BIA affirming the August 4, 2009, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip J. Mon-tante, Jr., denying voluntary departure and ordering A Harbi’s removal to Yemen. *In re Amran Ali Al Harbi,*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Aug. 23, 2010), *aff'g*No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig. Ct. Buffalo Aug. 4, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The petition for review argues that A Harbi did not commit a crime of moral turpitude, that he did not commit a crime of violence, and that his defense counsel failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea. A Harbi did not challenge his removability before the BIA and conceded removability before the IJ. Because A Harbi failed to exhaust these arguments, we lack jurisdiction to review them. *See Foster v. INS,*376 F.3d 75, 78 (2d Cir.2004) (per curiam) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)). In any event, A Harbi was not found removable based on commission of an aggravated felony, but based on commission of a crime of moral turpitude. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (defining “aggravated felony” to include a crime of violence).

This Court lacks jurisdiction to review a final order of removal against an alien removable by reason of having committed a crime of moral turpitude, except for constitutional claims and questions of law. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), (D); § 1182(a)(2) (relating to crimes of moral turpitude). A Harbi raises no such cognizable claims or questions. *See Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales,*516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir.2008) (“[W]e lack jurisdiction to review any legal argument that is so insubstantial and frivolous as to be inadequate to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED. As we have *498completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34.1(b).
732 A.2d 1200

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Richard James CONFAIR, Respondent.

No. 441 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

July 8, 1999.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 8th day of July, 1999, there having been filed with this Court by Richard James Confair his verified *272Statement of Resignation dated May 20, 1999, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Richard James Confair be and it is accepted, the request for retroactive disbarment on consent is denied and he is hereby DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
#### City of Niagara Falls, Respondent, v Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Appellant. Albert Elia Building Co., Inc., Plaintiff, v St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Defendant.

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term erroneously denied The Hartford Fire Insurance Company’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the city’s third cause of action seeking punitive damages and attorney’s fees for Hartford’s disclaimer of coverage for damage to the interior of the city’s library building caused by a storm on June 21, 1981. Punitive damages are not recoverable for a private breach of contract where a public right is not sought to be vindicated or morally culpable conduct deterred. The allegations of bad faith and a reckless disregard for the rights of the city are insufficient to support an award of punitive damages and attorney’s fees *(see, Uniland Dev. Co. v Home Ins. Co.,*97 AD2d 973; *Reifenstein v Allstate Ins. Co.,*92 AD2d 715; *Bruno v Home Mut. Ins. Co.*91 AD2d 1169).

The grant of summary judgment to the city on the issue of Hartford’s liability under its insurance policies must be af*1020firmed. In our view, in opposing the motion for summary judgment, Hartford failed to "demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action” *(Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 560). The report of S. Rottenberg, an engineer retained by Hartford, which was annexed to the opposing affidavit by Hartford’s attorney, indicates that the water damage to the interior of the building occurred prior to the wind damage, and was thus a loss excluded under the provisions of the policies. The report, however, must be classified as inadmissible hearsay and was insufficient to defeat the city’s motion *(see, GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales,*66 NY2d 965; *Heath v Soloff Constr.,*107 AD2d 507, 511; *Ferguson v Temmons,*79 AD2d 1090). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Kuszynski, J.—partial summary judgment.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15910]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, July 29, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Virtual meeting. Note: Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, we will 
conduct the open meeting virtually. If you would like to access the 
meeting, see the instructions below.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public. To access the virtual 
meeting, go to the commission's website www.fec.gov and click on the 
banner to be taken to the meeting page.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
Draft Advisory Opinion 2021-07: PAC Management Services LLC (``PACMS'')
Draft Advisory Opinion 2021-08: Congressman Scott Fitzgerald
REG 2021-02 (Subvendor Reporting)--Draft Notification of Availability
Management and Administrative Matters

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer. 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
    Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2021-15910 Filed 7-22-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
----

Action brought on 18 November 2005 — ‘M’ v Ombudsman

(Case T-412/05)

(2006/C 48/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s):‘M’ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Ombudsman

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By complaint brought before the European Ombudsman, a group of citizens sought a finding that there had been an instance of maladministration within the Commission in its handling of a complaint lodged by those citizens against their national authorities. By decision issued on 18 July 2002, the Ombudsman found that there had been an instance of maladministration and unfair treatment of the complaint on the part of the Commission.

The purpose of the present action, which has been brought by an official of the Commission unit responsible for handling the complaint at issue, is to seek compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been named in person in Decision 1288/99/OV and alleged negligence by the European Ombudsman in his investigation of the complaint and in the conclusions he arrived at in that decision. The applicant contends that after the decision had been published he was named in a press release issued by the European Ombudsman, and this was reproduced in various newspapers and on internet websites, which caused him to suffer damage. In the applicant's view, the damage allegedly suffered is especially serious as he holds an important position and the publication of the European Ombudsman's decision could seriously undermine his professional integrity.

The applicant bases his claim on the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, establishing the non-contractual liability of the European Community, which, according to the applicant, has been incurred in the present case as a result of the allegedly wrongful conduct on the part of the Ombudsman.

In support of his claim, the applicant alleges that, in the present case, the Ombudsman committed a serious breach of his duties by naming individuals — including the applicant — in person in his report in breach of the principles of confidentiality and proportionality insofar as the publication of the applicant's name was not, in the applicant's view, absolutely necessary and could not be justified by any exception to the general rule of confidentiality (1).

Moreover, the applicant claims that conduct of the Ombudsman and his staff constitutes a breach of the audi alterem partem principle, which forms a fundamental element of the right to a fair hearing. He also submits that it is forbidden to make an adverse judgment on a natural or legal person in a report that is to be published after general disclosure and is to be widely circulated.

Lastly, the applicant also claims that, in adopting the decision at issue, the Ombudsman made an incorrect assessment of the facts and based himself on inadequate information.

----

(1)  In support of his claim, the applicant relies, inter alia, on Case C-315/99 P ISMERI-EUROPA v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I-5281.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vincent Ramlall, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered July 5,1984, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

As defense counsel never raised an objection to the admissibility of certain tape-recorded conversations to which the defendant was not a party, any issue of law as to the propriety of their admission in evidence has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *see, People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 720, *cert denied*456 US 1010). In any event, these recordings were properly admissible at the defendant’s trial since they provided the background material necessary for the jury to understand the defendant’s role in the sale of cocaine on May 4, 1983 to the undercover police officer *(see, People v Green,*35 NY2d 437; *People v Silva,*66 AD2d 662). The court repeatedly admonished the jury as to the limited purpose behind the admission of these recordings into evidence.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for review. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-24-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-19-1999
<CASH>                                           3,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,414
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,699
<INVENTORY>                                     21,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,896
<PP&E>                                         176,137
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 309,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,635
<BONDS>                                        156,747
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   309,112
<SALES>                                        125,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,396
<CGS>                                          102,492
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,257
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,348
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,348
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
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 of IBSG International, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Rivers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



|                    |  |     |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 15, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael Rivers     
|                    |  |     |  | Michael Rivers         
|                    |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer