alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### State *vs.*William G. Cox.

Waldo.

Opinion February 22, 1890.

*Intoxicating liquors. Indictment. Nuisance. Place.*

In an indictment for tlio offense of maintaining a liquor nuisance, an allegation that tlio nuisance was carried on in a certain room in a building particularly identified, is a sufficient averment of place.

*State*v. *Lung,*63 Maine, 215, affirmed.

Ox EXCEPTIONS.

The respondent filed a general demurrer to the indictment, which was joined by attorney for the state. The presiding justice overruled the demurrer and adjudged the indictment sufficient. To this ruling the respondent excepted.

*William S. Fogler,*for defendant.

The indictment charges the respondent with maintaining a *418liquor nuisance, to wit: “A certain room in the Windsor Hotel, in said Belfast.” The *deseriptio loci*is insufficient. The alleged nuisance is not the Windsor Hotel, but “a certain room.” It does not appear which room is intended. *State*v. *LasTms,*67 Maine, 564; *Qom.*v. McQaughey, 9 Gray, 296.

Case not like ■ *Qom.*v. ShattueJc, 14 Gray, 28, in which it was proved that defendant occupied whole building, and used part for illegal purposes'.

*Albert F.*Sweetser, county attorney, for the state.

The allegation that the nuisance on which this indictment is based, was a certain room, etc., is sufficient. Had it been alleged that the nuisance was a certain building in said Belfast, it would clearly have been good. *Qom.*v. Logan, 12 Gray, 136; *Qom.*v. Lamb, 1 Gray, 493; *State*v. Lang, 63 Maine, 215; *Qom.*v. *Qallagher,*1 Allen, 592; 2 Bish. Cr. Proc. 111.

Counsel also cited: *Qom.*v. Howe, 13 Gray, 26; *Qom.*v. Donovan, 16 Gray, 18. In *Qom.*v. *McQaughey,*9 Gray, 296, the decision was based upon a distinction between the words “building” and “tenement,” found in the Mass, statutes.

In *State*v. Lashus, 67 Maine, 564, there was a variance between the indictment and proof.

Petbks, C. *J.*

On demurrer, to an indictment for maintaining a nuisance in the sale of liquors, it is contended by the respondent that an avernment that the nuisance was maintained “in a certain room in the Windsor Hotel in said Belfast,” in Waldo county, is not a sufficient description of place, — not definite enough, — inasmuch as the room is not further described by numbers or location.

In *State*v. *Lang,*63 Maine, 215, it was held to be sufficient to allege that the nuisance was maintained in a certain shop or store in a certain town named. But it would seem to be just as definite, if not more so, to declare that the business was carried on in a certain room in a building particularly identified. Had the process been for search and seizure, a description of place, like this, might not be exact enough to ensure safety to an officer who should forcibly search a room other than the one intended by the *419process. But in tbe trial of an indictment for tbe offense of nuisance, whether an allegation like the present will avail the government or not, depends wholly on the proof.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Virgin, Libbey, Emery and Foster,, JJ„, concurred.
Exhibit 13.1



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 this amendment to the annual report of Metal Storm Limited for the
period ending December 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof under cover of Form 20-F/A (the Report), I, Charles A. Vehlow, Chief Executive 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 applicable 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.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: September 8, 2004



By:

/s/ CHARLES A. VEHLOWName:

Charles A. VehlowTitle:

Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of DCI USA, Inc. (the "Company")
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
contained in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: March 26, 2006                                 /s/ Jonathan Ilan Ofir
                                                      ----------------------
                                                      Jonathan Ilan Ofir
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Administration for Children and Families

Notice is hereby given that I delegate to the Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, with authority to redelegate, the following authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families by the Secretary under section 421(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1522(b)(3).

(a) Authority Delegated.

Authority, under section 412(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), to make arrangements for the temporary care of refugees in the United States in emergency circumstances, including the establishment of processing centers, if necessary, without regard  to such provisions of law (other than the Renegotiation Act of 1951 and § 414(b) of the INA) regulating the making, performance, amendment, or modification of contracts and the expenditure of funds of the United States Government.

(b) Effect on Existing Delegations.

None.

(c) This delegation is limited to providing for the temporary care, including medical screening, of approximately 1,150 Burmese and Chinese asylum applicants on Guam awaiting adjudication of their asylum claims by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

(d) This delegation shall be exercised under the Department's existing delegation of authority and policy on regulations. This delegation of authority is effective upon date of signature. In addition, I hereby, affirm and ratify any actions taken by the Director or any other officials of the Office of Refugee Resettlement that, in effect, involved the exercise of these authorities prior to the effective date of this delegation.

(e) Any redelegation shall be in writing and prompt notification must be provided to all affected managers, supervisors and other personnel.

Dated: April 19, 2001.

Diann Dawson,

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10445  Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
No. 99-60319 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 99-60319 Conference Calendar

__________________ MONDAY OSAWARU OGBEBOR, also known as Emanuel Duro, Petitioner, versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A26 416 581

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Monday Osawaru Ogbebor petitions this court for review of an order of deportation issued by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The deportation order was based on Ogbebor’s conviction of fraud or misuse of entry documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). Ogbebor argues that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion for a third continuance to appeal to the BIA the District Director’s decision on remand denying his putative wife’s petition for alien relative. Ogbebor was grantedNo. 99-60319 -2- two continuances while the petition was pending initially before the District Director, during the appeal to the BIA, and on remand to the District Director to allow Ogbebor’s putative wife to rebut evidence that Ogbebor had a prior undissolved marriage. On remand, the District Director denied the petition for alien relative again. Because he has not shown that his putative wife’s petition for alien relative was prima facie approvable or that he presented good cause to the IJ for a third continuance, Ogbebor has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion for a third continuance of his deportation proceedings. See Witter v. INS , 113 F.3d 549, 555 (5th Cir. 1997), petition for cert. filed , 68 U.S.L.W. 3252 (U.S. Sept. 30, 1999)(No. 99-56). Ogbebor has also not shown that he was prejudiced by the denial of a continuance; he has not shown that the BIA is likely to reverse the District Director’s denial of his putative wife’s petition for alien relative, and he has conceded his deportability and that he is not entitled to any relief from deportation. See In re Sibrun , 18 I & N Dec. 354, 356-57 (BIA 1983). Because Ogbebor has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s denial of his motion for a third continuance, Ogbebor’s petition is DENIED.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
- 440 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

305 Nebraska Reports

REVEIZ v. EL-KASABY

Cite as 305 Neb. 440

Elena Reveiz, appellant, v. 

Bassel El-Kasaby, appellee.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed April 3, 2020. No. S-19-278.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: J 

Russell Derr, Judge. Affirmed.

Denise E. Frost, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., for 

appellant.

Cathy S. Trent-Vilim, and, on brief, Stacy L. Morris and 

Kate Geyer Johnson, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for 

appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

and Freudenberg, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The February 19, 2019, order of the Douglas County District 

Court is affirmed by an equally divided court.

Affirmed.

Papik, J., not participating.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

06/05/2020 01:08 AM CDT
----

----

| 1.  | The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.  | The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the LP. |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 25, 2011                                                                            |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                            |
| /s/ Anthony J. Branca                                                                           |
| Anthony J. Branca                                                                               |
| Chief Financial OfficerICON Capital Corp. General Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight B L.P. |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6159 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6159

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit for infant 
 formula rebates paid under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 
                   for Women, Infants, and Children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2010

Mr. Ellsworth 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 for infant 
 formula rebates paid under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 
                   for Women, Infants, and Children.

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

SECTION 1. BUSINESS CREDIT FOR INFANT FORMULA REBATES PAID UNDER 
              SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, 
              INFANTS, AND CHILDREN.

    (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to business related 
credits) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 45R. INFANT FORMULA REBATES PAID UNDER SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL 
              NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN.

    ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the infant formula 
rebate credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to 10 percent of 
the aggregate qualified infant formula rebates paid or incurred by the 
taxpayer during the taxable year.
    ``(b) Qualified Infant Formula Rebate.--For purposes of this 
section, the term `qualified infant formula rebate' means the rebate 
determined under the contract awarded as a result of a bid to a State 
agency in response to a rebate solicitation under section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786).''.
    (b) Credit Allowed as Part of General Business Credit.--Section 
38(b) of such Code (defining current year business credit) is amended 
by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (34), by striking the 
period at the end of paragraph (35) and inserting ``, plus'', and by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(36) the infant formula rebate credit determined under 
        section 45R.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart D of 
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding 
at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 45R. Infant formula rebates paid under special supplemental 
                            nutrition program for women, infants, and 
                            children.''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 01-8002

IN RE STEPHEN L. SHELNUTT, MEMBER OF THE BAR.

Before HOLDAWAY, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon notice of discipline imposed against the respondent,

Stephen L. Shelnutt, by the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia,

that suspended his license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia for six months, up to

and includingAugust 31, 2001. This Court on April 3, 2001, ordered that the respondent show cause

why he should not be suspended from practice before this Courtfor a period to run concurrently with

his suspension in the Commonwealth of Virginia. See U.S. VET. APP. R. ADM. & PRAC. 4(c).

The respondent has not responded to the Court's show-cause order. Hence, there has been

no cause shown why the respondent should not be suspended from the practice of law before this

Court, such suspension to run concurrently with his suspension in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Stephen L. Shelnutt is suspended from practice before this Court for a period

to run concurrently with his suspension in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to wit, until August 31,

2001. The respondent is advised that in order for him to be permitted to resume practice before this

Court, he must provide to the Clerk of the Court proof of reinstatement of his license to practice law

in the Commonwealth of Virginia. See U.S. VET. APP. R. ADM. & PRAC. 7(a).

DATED: July 10, 2001 PER CURIAM.
Exhibit 10.95


 


CONSENT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


 


This
CONSENT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (this “Consent”) is delivered as of                                   ,
2010 by the undersigned stockholder (the “Stockholder”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Stockholder and Cano Petroleum, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) are parties to that certain Stock Voting Agreement, dated
as of                                         ,
2009 (the “Agreement), pursuant to which, among
other things, the Stockholder delivered to the Company an Irrevocable Proxy
dated                         ,
2009 (the “Proxy”);


 


WHEREAS, Resaca
Exploitation, Inc, a Texas corporation (“Resaca”), Resaca Acquisition
Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Resaca
(“Merger Sub”), and the Company are
parties to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 29,
2009 (the “Merger Agreement”), as amended
pursuant to that certain Amendment No. 1 to Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated February 24, 2010 (“Amendment No. 1”) and as proposed to
be further amended in accordance with the Amendment No. 2 to Agreement and
Plan of Merger attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Amendment No. 2”
and, together with Amendment No. 1, the “Amendments”, pursuant to
which Merger Sub will merge with and into Company (the “Merger”).  Each capitalized term used herein and not
otherwise defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Merger Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company
desires to obtain the consent and acknowledgement of the Stockholder relative
to certain modifications to the terms of the Merger Consideration to be
received by the Stockholder pursuant to the Merger, the terms of which are set
forth in (i) the Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series A
Convertible Preferred Stock of Resaca attached hereto as Exhibit B
(the “Resaca CD”) and (ii) the Investors Rights Agreement attached
hereto as Exhibit C (the “Resaca IR Agreement”).


 


1.     The Stockholder
hereby consents to the Amendments and the modifications to the terms of the
Merger Consideration as set forth in the Amendments, the Resaca CD and the
Resaca IR Agreement.


 


2.     The Stockholder hereby
consents to the Offering and the Subsequent Offering (if any) (each as defined
in the Resaca CD).


 


3.     The Stockholder hereby
consents and acknowledges that the Agreement and the Proxy each remain in full
force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Stockholder has caused this Consent to
be duly executed, as of the date and year first above written.


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Stockholder

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  



 

















 


EXHIBIT A


 


Amendment No. 2 to Agreement and Plan of Merger


 


A-1

















 


EXHIBIT B


 


Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of

Series A Convertible Preferred Stock of Resaca


 


B-1

















 


EXHIBIT C


 


Investors Rights Agreement


 


C-1
Exhibit 32


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

In  connection  with the  annual  report of  California  Clean  Air,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report")
the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

         (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.


Dated: June 22, 2004                  /s/ STEPHEN D. WILSON
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Stephen D. Wilson

                                      Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                      Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Chief
                                      Accounting Officer, Director