alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1292.

#### Hall *v.*The State.

Certiorari, from Irwin superior court — Judge Whipple. March 10, 1908.

Submitted October 6,

Decided October 12, 1908.

*H. J. Quincey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Walter F. George, solicitor-general,*contra.

Hill, C. J.

1. The act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 83), which makes a juror who has served at any term of the superior court ineligible to serve at the next succeeding term, “relates to regular terms, and does not apply to either adjourned or special terms.” “An adjourned term is but a continuance of a regular term, and the act by its terms would not apply to jury service at such adjourned term.” *Wall*v. *State,*126 *Ga.*86*(54*S. E. 815). A plea in abatement, therefore, reciting that the indictment was returned at an adjourned term, by the same grand jury which had served at the prece’ding regular term of the court, was properly stricken on demurrer.

2. No other error of law is complained of, and the evidence supports the verdict. *Judgment affirmed.*
Richard STOGSDILL, petitioner, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

No. 15-9040.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2046/2004

of 29 November 2004         

fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The export refunds on the products listed in Article 1(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003, excluding malt, exported in the natural state, shall be as set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 December 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 November 2004.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78.

(2)OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1431/2003 (OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 16).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 29 November 2004 fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal

----
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-3674EM

_____________ Alfonso Reyes-Lechuga, * * Appellant, * * v. * * * On Appeal from the United Janet Reno, as Attorney General o f * States District Court the United States; Doris Meissner , * for the Eastern District as Commissioner of the Immigratio n * of Missouri. and Naturalization Service; an d * Chester S. Moyer, as Eastern Distric t * of Missouri Officer in Charge , * Immigration and Naturalization Service , * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 23, 1999 Filed: July 19, 1999

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FLOYD R. GIBSON and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Alphoso Reyes-Lechuga appeals from the dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus. Relying on Section 306(a) of the Illegal-2-

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub L. No. 104-302, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (IIRIRA), which amended Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the District Court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s decision to deny the petitioner discretionary relief under INA § 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). While this case was pending on appeal, the Supreme Court held that amended Section 242 does not refer to deportation orders, but instead only to certain separate and discrete actions in the deportation process which are not at issue here. Reno v. American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee , 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 (1999). Therefore, this section cannot ser ve as a basis for denying jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Furthermore, this Court has recently held that habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 has survived the enactment of IIRIRA and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act with respect to aliens governed by the transitional rules of IIRIRA. See Shah v. Reno , __ F.3d __, No. 98-2636 (July 1, 1999).
The judgment is reversed. The District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to reconsider the petition in light of Shah v. Reno , __ F.3d __, No. 98-2636 (July 1, 1999). A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1979** 

DORARENA BOYD, et al
. , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. ROBERT MURRAY; BEVERLY BROWN; CHARLOTTE MAULL; SHEPHERD VILLAGE; FIRST BAPTIST BUTE STREET; REGIONAL LICENSE; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLENDA AMES, Regional Office; SUE MYATT; DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Division of Building Safety; HEALTH DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; MICHAEL EUGENE PLUMMER; MIRCLE TABERNACLE FAMILY CENTE R; TASTE N SEE; CONFERENCE CENTER , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv - 00329

- AWA

- DEM )

Submitted : January 21, 2016 Decided: January 27, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Dorarena Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dorarena Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil action without prejudice. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the order Boyd seeks to appeal is neit her a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619 , 623 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1673 

Recognizing 75 Texas World War II veterans visiting Washington, DC, on 

September 27, 2010, to visit the memorials built in their honor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 

Mr. PAUL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing 75 Texas World War II veterans visiting Washington, DC, on September 27, 2010, to visit the memorials built in their honor. 

Whereas 16,000,000 brave Americans served in the Armed 

Forces during World War II, and more than 400,000 

sacrificed their lives; 

Whereas there are more than 1,600,000 veterans living in the 

State of Texas, of which more than 157,000 served during World War II; 

Whereas, on September 27, 2010, the Dow Chemical Company will fly 75 Texas World War II veterans who retired 

from the company to Washington, DC, as part of the 

Honor Flight program; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1673 IH 

Whereas the visit will allow the veterans to visit the memorials built in their honor and pay tribute to those with 

whom they served in the Armed Forces, as well as to 

those who followed in their footsteps; and 

Whereas Congress thanks these Texas veterans for their 

bravery, sacrifice and service to the country during World 

War II, and expresses appreciation for their many years 

of hard work as part of Dow’s Texas Operations: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors 

2 the 75 World War II veterans visiting Washington, DC, 

3 from Texas on September 27, 2010, for their service and 

4 dedication and wishes them a memorable visit to Wash5 ington. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q 
FOR THE 6-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      29,250,427
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      11,568,288
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                113,255,684
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                     138,100,755
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                       136,105,395
<LOANS>                                  1,159,274,968
<ALLOWANCE>                                  7,902,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,571,981,110
<DEPOSITS>                               1,079,922,641
<SHORT-TERM>                               338,661,999
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         17,313,806
<LONG-TERM>                                 34,840,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,607,567
<OTHER-SE>                                  64,635,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,571,981,110
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             47,454,992
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            9,118,482
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            56,573,474
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          24,355,127
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          34,617,415
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       21,950,059
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  252,421
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (97,415)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             19,459,222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             13,022,569
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  13,022,569
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,966,681
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.04
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,387,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             10,918,000
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             7,888,323
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  238,421
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            7,902,323
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         7,902,323
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      7,665,815
        

</TABLE>
Jonathan Blake LOGAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6267.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Exhibit
23.1


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-3 (No. 333-130214) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-62829,
33-62835, 33-63249, 333-03275, 333-03277, 333-118732, 333-19241, 333-77615,
333-59854, 333-108384, 333-133434, 333-135893, 333-135894 and 333-135897) of
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation of our report dated February 12, 2008
relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
10-K.




/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1665/2004

of 23 September 2004         

fixing the representative prices and the additional import duties for molasses in the sugar sector applicable from 24 September 2004         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the market in sugar (1), and in particular Article 24(4) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The representative prices and the additional duties applying to imports of the products referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95 are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 September 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 September 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(2)OJ L 141, 24.6.1995, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 79/2003 (OJ L 13, 18.1.2003, p. 4).

(3)OJ L 145, 27.6.1968, p. 12. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1422/95 (OJ L 141, 24.6.1995, p. 12).

----

ANNEX

Representative prices and additional duties for imports of molasses in the sugar sector applicable from 24 September 2004

----

(1)  This amount replaces, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1422/95, the rate of the Common Customs Tariff duty fixed for these products.

(2)  For the standard quality as defined in Article 1 of amended Regulation (EEC) No 785/68.

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FOR 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED  DECEMBER  31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             163,241
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,896,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,757,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,992,534
<PP&E>                                             404,745
<DEPRECIATION>                                     111,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,745,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,052,358
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             5,240
<OTHER-SE>                                           1,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,745,279
<SALES>                                         16,377,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,377,529
<CGS>                                           10,190,916
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,190,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,104,887
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,103,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                       391,845
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,103,093
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       711,248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.26


</TABLE>
NO. 07-08-0280-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	OCTOBER 21, 2008

	______________________________

	LESLIE FOY ACKER, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 110TH DISTRICT COURT OF BRISCOE COUNTY;

	NO. 1098; HONORABLE WILLIAM P. SMITH, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court is Leslie Foy Acker’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal in which he represents he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal.  As required by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is signed by Appellant and his attorney.  No decision of this Court having been delivered, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice

Do not publish.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, George W.Millward, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fulton Bancshares Corporation.

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

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a)          designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

(b)         evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          disclosed in thisquarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

(a)          all significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)         anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 11, 2006 | By:    | /s/ GEORGE W.  MILLWARD                          |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | George W.  Millward,                             |
|                    |   | *Interim  President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
# L_2004239DE.01003601.xml

| 9.7.2004 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 239/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2004

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 239/36

---

Berichtigung der Richtlinie 93/31/EWG des Rates vom 14. Juni 1993 über den Ständer von zweirädrigen Kraftfahrzeugen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 188 vom 29. Juli 1993
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 188 vom 29. Juli 1993

Seite 22, Anhang, Punkt 3.1.2:

anstatt:

„

| 3.1.2. | Die Bestimmungen aus Punkt 3.1.1.3 gelten nicht für Fahrzeuge, die so ausgelegt sind, dass der Motor nicht gestartet werden kann, solange der Seitenständer ausgeklappt ist. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.2.

Die Bestimmungen aus Punkt 3.1.1.3 gelten nicht für Fahrzeuge, die so ausgelegt sind, dass der Motor nicht gestartet werden kann, solange der Seitenständer ausgeklappt ist.

“

muss es heißen:

„

| 3.1.2. | Die Bestimmungen aus Punkt 3.1.1.3 gelten nicht für Fahrzeuge, die so ausgelegt sind, dass sie von ihrem Motor nicht angetrieben werden können, solange der Seitenständer ausgeklappt ist. |
| --- | --- |

3.1.2.

Die Bestimmungen aus Punkt 3.1.1.3 gelten nicht für Fahrzeuge, die so ausgelegt sind, dass sie von ihrem Motor nicht angetrieben werden können, solange der Seitenständer ausgeklappt ist.

“

---
Edward H. FLINT, petitioner, v. Dennis J. STILGER, et al.

No. 16-379.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky denied.
William Ernest KUENZEL, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 16-213.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1723 

Disavowing the partisan impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 

Mr. FATTAH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Disavowing the partisan impeachment of William Jefferson 

Clinton. 

Whereas the impeachment process provides a mechanism for 

the removal of the President, Vice President, and other 

federal civil officers found to have engaged in ‘‘treason, 

bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’’; 

Whereas the Constitution places the responsibility and authority to determine whether to impeach and to draft articles of impeachment in the hands of the House of Representatives; 

Whereas the House took up four articles of impeachment on 

December 18, 1998, in the 105th Congress, and acted in 

a politically partisan manner during the impeachment of 

President William Jefferson Clinton; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1723 IH 

Whereas the American public trusts their elected representatives to serve in an impartial and appropriate manner 

given the severity of the disciplinary action sought to remove President Clinton from office: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House disavows the articles of im2 peachment filed against President William Jefferson Clin3 ton given the irresponsible and inappropriately partisan 

4 manner in which the House discharged its constitutional 

5 duties. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS