alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Askea *vs.*The State of Georgia.

1. The rule that a conviction cannot be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice applies only to cases of felony. In misdemeanors, the complicity of the witness goes to his credit; and in this case, the defendant was convicted and sentenced for a misdemeanor.

2. The witness claimed to be an accomplice in this case was sufficiently corroborated by other testimony.

3. The wife of an accomplice is a competent witness to testify to any fact in a criminal proceeding not against her husband, if he be not on trial and not affected by such testimony.

October 13, 1885.

Criminal Law. Accomplice. Witness. Husband and Wife. Before Judge Estes. Habersham Superior Court. March Adjourned Term, 1885.

Reported in the decision.

H. S. West; Crane & Jones, for plaintiff in error.

W. S. Erwin, solicitor general, by Frank L. Haralson; 0. H. Sutton, for the state.

*357Blandeord, Justice.

The plaintiff in error was indicted and found guilty of cattle stealing, and he complains that he was improperly convicted, because the main evidence against him was that of one Mansfield, who had been convicted of the same offense and was an accomplice.

The record shows that the *corpus delicti*was shown by the testimony of the prosecutor. The wife of Mansfield corroborated him in this, that plaintiff in error came to Mansfield’s house on the morning of the day the offense was committed, and they went off together; that the accused came back at or near dark and carried off part of' the beef; he asked Mansfield “if he had got that fixed up the reply was, “ that it was.” Askea carried off one quarter of the beef; this was between sundown and dark of the day the yearling was killed. Joe Berry and James Mullen also corroborate Mansfield as to his and Askea’s being together at or about the time.the yearling was killed.

The wife of an accomplice is a competent witness to testify to any fact in a criminal proceeding not against her husband, although her husband may have been an accomplice, if he be not on trial and is not affected by such testimony of the wife under the act of 1866, as contained in section 8854 of the Oode. In the case of *Parsons vs. State,*43 *Ga.,*197, this court held that the rule that a conviction could not be had on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice only applied to cases of felonies. In misdemeanors the complicity of the witness goes to his credit. The plaintiff in error was convicted a'nd sentenced as for a misdemeanor.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2022482EN.01001301.xml

| 19.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 482/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 482/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — SC v Eulex Kosovo

(Case T-242/17 RENV) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Common foreign and security policy - Civil international staff of EU international missions - Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts - Internal competition - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Admissibility - Procedure by default)

(2022/C 482/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SC (represented by: A. Kunst, lawyer)

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: L.-G. Wigemark, acting as Agent, and by E. Raoult, lawyer)

Re:

By her action based on Articles 272 and 268 TFEU, the applicant asks the General Court, in essence, after finding, first, that Eulex Kosovo had failed to fulfil its contractual and non-contractual obligations and, secondly, that the decision not to accept her application following the internal competition which took place on 19 July 2016 for the post of prosecutor and the decision not to renew her final employment contract which resulted from that decision are unlawful, to order Eulex Kosovo to compensate her for the material and non-material damage she allegedly suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders Eulex Kosovo to pay SC compensation in respect of the material damage suffered, equivalent to 19 months’ gross salary, to which the daily subsistence allowance and the salary increase should be added, to correspond to the situation in which the final employment contract was renewed until 14 June 2018, together with compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed on ex æquo et bono at EUR 50 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders Eulex Kosovo to pay SC compensation in respect of the material damage suffered, equivalent to 19 months’ gross salary, to which the daily subsistence allowance and the salary increase should be added, to correspond to the situation in which the final employment contract was renewed until 14 June 2018, together with compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed on ex æquo et bono at EUR 50 000;

| 2. | Orders Eulex Kosovo to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings in Case C-730/18 P and Case T-242/17. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Eulex Kosovo to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings and to the proceedings in Case C-730/18 P and Case T-242/17.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.

---
cme @

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

20 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7499
www.cme.com

November 27, 2006

Ms. Eileen Donovan

Secretary of the Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21" Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: CME Clearing of CBOT Denatured Fuel Ethanol Forward Month and
Previous Month Swaps
Submission No. 06-103

Dear Ms. Donovan:

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “Exchange") hereby notifies the Commission that
the Exchange, through its Clearing House, will provide clearing services for the Chicago Board of Trade
(CBOT®) with respect to the CBOT Denatured Fuel Ethanol Forward Month and Previous Month
Swaps. As the CBOT stated in its submission dated November 9, 2006, the products will be traded off-
exchange on an over-the-counter (OTC) basis. Clearing of the CBOT Ethanol Swaps will occur on or
about December 4, 2006.

The Exchange certifies that the clearing of these OTC Swap products neither violates nor is
inconsistent with any provision of the Commodity Exchange Act or of the rules and regulations
thereunder.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (312) 648-5422.

Sincerely,

/S/ Stephen M. Szarmack
Director and Associate General Counsel

cc: Mr. John Lawton

‘SMS/eIm/5990a
**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 this Quarterly Report of Zion Nevada Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Shawn Wright, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

By:   */s/ Shawn Wright*

       Shawn Wright

       Chief Executive Officer

       Chief Accounting Officer

 

Dated:  October 23, 2008
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 3 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 3 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 3 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 3 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer 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 ZST Digital Networks, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
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 his
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.





/s/
      Zhong BoZhong
      BoChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)November
      16, 2009/s/
      John ChenJohn
      ChenChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)November
      16, 2009





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
document and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of ZST Digital
Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
154 So. 918

#### Houston REED, Adm’r, etc., et al. v. Cloud S. MASTERSON.

8 Div. 563.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 17, 1934.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 39 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 39 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James J. Jacobs, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Annual Report of Houston American Energy Corp. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Houston American Energy Corp.



By:

/S/    JAMES J. JACOBSName:

James J. JacobsTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerDated:

March 25, 2010
Case 1:07-cv-05862-RJH     Document 16      Filed 08/13/2007     Page 1 of 1
December 14, 2005

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21 Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581
Reference File #2612.01
Rule Certification

Dear Ms. Webb:

Pursuant to Commission Regulation 40.6(a), the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT*) hereby
submits the following:

- Revised Regulation 4906.01 per the attached text (additions underlined; deletions
struck through).

The referenced regulation change will reduce the minimum trading increment for 10 Year
Interest Rate Swap futures from one thirty-second or one half of one thirty-second of one point.

The Exchange intends to implement this revision no sooner than one day after the Commission’s
receipt of this filing.

There were no opposing views in connection with this revision.

The CBOT certifies that this revision complies with the Commodity Exchange Act and the rules
thereunder.

Sincerely,
Paul J. Draths

Vice President and Secretary

b121305


4906.01 Price Basis - The price of 10-Year Interest Rate Swap futures contracts shall be quoted in
points. One point equals $1,000.00. Par shall be on the basis of 100 points. The minimum price
fluctuation shall be one half of one thirty-second (1/32) of one point orthirty-one-deHars-andtwenty-
five-cents{$34.25} per 100_points-($15.625 per contract); except for intermonth spreads, where the

minimum price fluctuations shall be in+nultiples-ofone fourth of one thirty-second of one point per400
points-($7.8125} per contract). Contracts shall not be made on any other price basis.
# C_2019004EN.01002801.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2018 — Troszczynski v Parliament

(Case T-550/17) (1)

(Law governing the institutions - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Decision to lift parliamentary immunity - Activity unconnected to the functions of a Member - Procedure for lifting immunity - Non-contractual liability - Damage - Causal link)

(2019/C 4/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, and subsequently S. Alonso de León, N. Görlitz and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 14 June 2017 by which the Parliament lifted the applicant’s immunity and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mylène Troszczynski to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mylène Troszczynski to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000275177
<NAME> CAROLINA TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                              54
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   114933
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2348
<INVENTORY>                                       6884
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                121124
<PP&E>                                         1818491
<DEPRECIATION>                                  969389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1052378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           173237
<BONDS>                                         248309
<COMMON>                                         72530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1052378
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                769464
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   465095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               23257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     76683
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  42424
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     57508
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### Sergio RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brenda M. CASH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 12-55515.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 9, 2013.*

Filed May 29, 2013.

Patrick Morgan Ford, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

William M. Wood, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

*587Before: PREGERSON and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and DANIEL, District Judge.**

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Sergio Rodriguez appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

Rodriguez contends that the state court unreasonably applied *Griffin v. California,*380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), by failing to find error when the prosecutor made impermissible comments about Rodriguez’s failure to testify at trial. “While a direct comment about the defendant’s failure to testify always violates *Griffin,*a prosecutor’s indirect comment violates *Griffin*only ‘if it is manifestly intended to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, or is of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure to testify.’ ” *Hovey v. Ayers,*458 F.3d 892, 912 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting *Lincoln v. Sunn,*807 F.2d 805, 809 (9th Cir.1987)).

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) standard, the state court’s conclusion that no error occurred was neither an unreasonable application of *Griffin*nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Although Rodriguez contends the prosecutor made an indirect reference to his failure to testify, when viewed in context, the prosecutor was referring to defense counsel’s failure to rebut certain questions raised about the evidence. A comment on the failure of defense counsel to counter or explain the testimony presented or the evidence introduced is not a *Griffin*violation, where, as here, it is “not in any manner directed at the [defendant’s] failure to take the stand.” *United States v. Mares,*940 F.2d 455, 461 (9th Cir.1991); *see also United States v. Sarno,*73 F.3d 1470, 1498-99 (9th Cir.1995); *United States v. Mende,*43 F.3d 1298, 1301 (9th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 40-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 40-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 40-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-04462-AKH Document 40-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
No. 76-5505.

#### In re Hartzell.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
STATEMENT OF INCORPORATOR

IN LIEU OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING

OF

THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXCHANGE, INC.

The certificate of incorporation of The Environmental Exchange, Inc. having been filed in 

the office of the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on July 23, 2021, the undersigned, being 

the sole incorporator named in said certificate, does hereby state that the following actions were 

taken on this day for the purpose of organizing the corporation pursuant to Section 108(c) of the 

General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware: 

i) By-laws for the regulation of the affairs of the corporation were adopted by

the undersigned incorporator and were ordered inserted in the minute book immediately following 

the copy of the Certificate of Incorporation and before this instrument. 

ii) The following persons were elected the initial directors of the corporation to

hold office until their respective successors are elected and qualified or until their earlier resignation 

or removal: 

Michael MacGregor

Dan Scarbrough 

Dated: July 23, 2021

Kristen A. Baracy

[TEX] Exhibit G-1 The Environmental Exchange, Inc. - Statement of Incorporator
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 9 (the “Partnership”) for the years ended March 31, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section1350, as adopted pursuant to section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.








/s/ WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.


Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.


President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: April 29, 2011
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

The Board of Directors 

GE Life and AnnuityAssurance Company 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements (No. 333-67902, No. 333-69620 and No. 333-69786) on Form S-1 of GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company of our reports dated February 6, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of GE Life and Annuity AssuranceCompany and subsidiary as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ interest and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and all related schedules,which reports appear in the December 31, 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company. Our reports refer to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets in 2002 and derivative instrumentsand hedging activities in 2001. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Richmond, Virginia 

March 5, 2004
Exhibit 10.18


 


ASSIGNMENT


 


 


                This Assignment is
made as of the 7th day of October, 2005 by INLAND REAL ESTATE
ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation (“Assignor”)
to and for the benefit of INLAND AMERICAN SUFFOLK
LAKE VIEW, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”).


 


                Assignor does
hereby sell, assign, transfer, set over and convey unto Assignee all of its
right, title and interest as Buyer under that certain Agreement dated as of
July 14, 2005, as amended by Amendments to Agreement dated August 11, 2005,
August 25, 2005 and September 9th, 2005 (collectively, the “Agreement”), for the sale and purchase of a parcel of
property improved with an office and industrial building commonly known as Lake
View Technology Center I, located at 115 Lake View Parkway, in Suffolk,
Virginia.


 


                Assignor
represents and warrants that it is the Buyer under the Agreement, and that it
has not sold, assigned, transferred, or encumbered such interest in any way to
any other person or entity. By acceptance hereof, Assignee accepts the
foregoing assignment and agrees, from and after the date hereof, to (i) perform
all of the obligations of Buyer under the Agreement, and (ii) indemnify,
defend, protect and hold Assignor harmless from and against all claims and
liabilities arising under the Agreement.


 


                IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Assignor and Assignee have executed this instrument as of the date
first written above.


 


	
  ASSIGNOR:

  	
   

  
	
  INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC.

  an Illinois corporation

  



 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza

  
	
  Name:

  	
  G. Joseph Cosenza

  
	
  As Its:

  	
  President

  



 


 


	
  ASSIGNEE:

  	
   

  
	
  Inland American Suffolk Lake View, L.L.C.,

  a Delaware limited liability company

  



 


	
  By: 

  	
  Inland American Acquisitions, Inc.,

  a Delaware corporation, its sole member

  



 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza

  
	
  Name:

  	
  G. Joseph Cosenza

  
	
  Its:

  	
  President
# FCM DATA DECEMBER 2006