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

1. New Trial.—The fact that a petit juror was one of the grand jurors who found the indictment, though good cause of challenge, is not good cause for new trial, when that fact was ascertainable by proper diligence, and no diligence was shown.

2. Verbal Charge to Jury.—In misdemeanor cases exception must be taken at the time to a charge given verbally. The objection comes too late after verdict.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Paris, county of Lamar. Tried below before the Hon. J. Q. Chenowith.

*Hale & Scott,*for the appellant.

*H. H. Boone,*Attorney General, and *W. B. Dunham,*for the State.

*9Ector, P. J.

The court did not commit an error in refusing to grant a new trial because one of the jurors who tried this cause was a member of the grand jury who returned the bill of indictment. The fact that he was a member of the grand jury that found the bill of indictment did not render McFaden incompetent as a juror. It is a cause of challenge. The fact might have been ascertained by the use of proper diligence on the part of defendant and his counsel; and the motion does not disclose any effort to do so, and was properly overruled. *Rosebrough*v. *The State,*43 Texas, 570; *Trueblood*v. *The State,*1 Texas Ct. of App. 650.

The defendant seeks to reverse the judgment upon the ground contained in his 3d assignment of errors, and also in his motion for new trial, viz.: “ The court erred in not charging the jury in writing, the defendant not consenting do a verbal charge.”

In this case the defendant was indicted and convicted of an assault and battery. The judgment recites that the, court charged the jury, and we will presume that this was done in a legal manner. The objection to a verbal charge comes too late when made for the first time on a motion for new trial. It should be excepted to at the time, to be ground of error. Pasc. Dig., Arts. 3064, 3067.

In the case of *Vanwey*v. *The State*the same point raised was decided by our supreme court; and the following extract is taken from the opinion of the court in that case:

> “This objection appears only in the motion for new trial, and not by an exception taken at the time of the trial, as required by the Code, in order to make it a good ground of error.

> “ The judgment entry recites that the court charged the jury, and from that we must presume it to have been done, in a misdemeanor, in a legal manner, unless the contrary is *10made to appear by a bill of exceptions, or in some way other than in the motion for new trial filed by the defendant.” 41 Texas, 639.

The indictment is a good one, the evidence is abundantly sufficient to sustain the judgment, and there is nothing in this record to show that any injustice has been done the defendant.

The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
Miguel GUERRERO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9112.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Cecilia M. HYLTON, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 18-789.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                              iBIZ TECHNOLOGY CORP.
    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 iBiz Technology Corp. (the Company)
on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth
W. Schilling, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

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

Date: March 15, 2004






/s/ Kenneth W. Schilling
----------------------------------------------------
Kenneth W. Schilling
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
**Important legal notice**

*|*

# 52005IP0177

**European Parliament resolution on the Seminar of Governmental Experts on Climate Change***Official Journal 092 E , 20/04/2006 P. 0384 - 0387*

ANNEX III

MOTION OF CENSURE

on the Commission

concerning protection against the risk of conflict of interests

(B6-0318/2005)

SIGNATORIES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER

Adwent Filip, Allister James Hugh, Attard-Montalto John, Baco Peter, Batten Gerard, Belder Bastiaan, Blokland Johannes, Bloom Godfrey, Bonde Jens-Peter, Booth Graham, Borghezio Mario, Brie André, van Buitenen Paul, Callanan Martin, Camre Mogens, Chruszcz Sylwester, Clark Derek, Couteaux Paul Marie, Czarnecki Marek, Czarnecki Ryszard, de Brun Bairbre, Evans Jill, Farage Nigel, Giertych Maciej, Goudin Hélène, Grabowski Dariusz, de Groen-Kouwenhoven Elly, Guidoni Umberto, Hannan Daniel, Heaton-Harris Christopher, Helmer Roger, Hudghton Ian, Karatzaferis Georgios, Knapman Roger, Kozlik Sergej, Krarup Ole, Krupa Urszula, Liotard Kartika Tamara, Louis Patrick, Lucas Caroline, Lundgren Niels, McDonald Mary Lou, Markov Helmuth, Martin Hans-Peter, Masiel Jan Tadeusz, Meijer Erik, Mote Ashley, Natrass Michael Henry, Pek Bogdan, Pflüger Tobias, Piotrowski Miroslaw Mariusz, Portas Miguel, Ransdorf Miloslav, Remek Vladimir, Resetartis Karin, Rogalski Bogusław, Rutowicz Leopold Józef, Salvini Matteo, Schlyter Carl, Sinnott Kathy, Sjöstedt Jonas, Speroni Francesco Enrico, Staes Bart, Sumberg David, Svenson Eva-Britt, Titford Jeffrey, Tomczak Witold, Uca Feleknas, Verges Paul, de Villiers Philippe, Wagenknech Sahra, Whittaker John, Wierzejski Wojciech, Wise Thomas, Wohlin Lars, Železný Vladimir, Zimmer Gabriele

--------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.27

November 22, 1999

Mr. John Iacone
International Integrated Solutions, Ltd.
100-9 Patco Court
Islandia, NY  11722

         Re:      Memorandum of Understanding for Wall Street Strategies' (WSS)
                  Web Development Project

Dear John:

This memorandum sets forth the terms and conditions that we have agreed upon
verbally.

International Integrated Solutions/Hub City Media (IIS) will be WSS' Web
developer, responsible for all software development and integration for the WSS
Web site. It is understood that IIS shall dedicate the resources of at least 3
of its employees, as well as a significant portion of a Project Manager's time,
to the project over a 6 month time period that began 10/25/99 and runs thru
4/25/00.

The scope of work is understood to include timely implementation of Phase I and
Phase II functionality, as outlined in IIS' previous proposal, subsequent
features and functionality, customized content syndication development, and
additional development that our strategic partners and marketing ventures
require to be implemented. The work includes the custom database application
being developed for WSS. The initial Phase I Web site functionality is scheduled
to be completed and live by 12/23/99.

Fees: A total of $350,000 for the 6 month period to be paid as follows: $100,000
upon execution and $250,000 in 5 equal monthly installments of $50,000 beginning
with the period 11/26 - 12/25/99 and ending with the period 3/26/00 - 4/25/99.

Agreed to by:



/s/ David McCallen                                      /s/ John Iacone
-------------------------------                         ------------------------
David McCallen                                          John Iacone
Wall Street Strategies                                  IIS
Mohammad SHARIFI, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.

No. 17-6382.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, Allen L. Shulman, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interland, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: December 27, 2004                                                      /s/ Allen L. Shulman   Allen L. Shulman   Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,and Executive Counsel  
30
Rahmad Lashad GEDDES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7351.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
##### 



Exhibit 11 XATA CORPORATION
EARNINGS PER SHARE
THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004 Three MonthsEndedDecember 31, 2004BASIC AND DILUTED COMPUTATIONNet loss
    
    $
    (993,840
    )Less: preferred stock dividend
    
    
    (40,369
    )Net loss as adjusted
    
    $
    (1,034,209
    )Weighted average common and common share equivalents
    
    
    7,130,558Basic and diluted loss per share
    
    $
    (0.15
    )BASIC AND DILUTED COMPUTATION OF LOSS TO COMMON SHAREHOLDERSNet loss
    
    $
    (993,840
    )Less: preferred stock dividend
    
    
    (40,369
    )Less: preferred stock deemed dividend
    
    
    (110,202
    )Net loss to common shareholders
    
    $
    (1,144,411
    )Weighted average common and common share equivalents
    
    
    7,130,558Basic and diluted loss per share
    
    $
    (0.16
    )
 Note: See Note 6 in Notes to Financial Statements in this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
for the three month perioded
ended December 31, 2004.
Mary Jean LEGG, petitioner, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC.

No. 16-8692.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Todd Levon, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Barack Obama et aI., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

MAY 2 1 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

O~ 0957 

Plaintiff, a prisoner, has filed a pro se complaint in the nature of a writ of mandamus and 

an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss 

the complaint for mandamus for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). 

The plaintiffs complaint is construed to be one in the nature of mandamus. For relief, 

the complaint seeks an order from this court compelling President Obama to enter an Executive 

Order making certain changes to a law, and compelling certain prison officials to make certain 

changes in a treatment program operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. CompI. at 1. 

The remedy of mandamus "is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary 

circumstances." Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33,34 (1980). Only 

"exceptional circumstances" warranting "a judicial usurpation of power" will justify issuance of 

the writ. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (internal 

quotation marks omitted)); see also Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345, 353 (D.C. Cir. 

2007) (stating that mandamus is "an extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary 
cases") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Mandamus is available only if "(1) the 

plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no 

other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." In re Medicare Reimbursement Litigation, 414 

F.3d 7, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). 

With respect to the first two requirements, mandamus is available "only where the duty to be 

performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined. The law must 

not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable." 

Lozada Colon v. us. Dep't a/State, 170 F.3d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). 

The complaint does not establish either that plaintiff has a clear right to the relief 

requested or that the defendants have a clear duty to perform a ministerial, clearly defined, and 

peremptory act. Because the plaintiff seeks mandamus relief, but cannot show that he is entitled 

to it, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against these defendants. 

A separate order accompanies this memorandu 

Date: / 5' ~ 2t't1 

2
Daniel SCOTT, Sr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8728.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Ronnie Junior RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7245.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

*1218Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 25053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09045]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    The National Science Board hereby gives notice of the scheduling of 
a teleconference of the Committee on Strategy for the transaction of 
National Science Board business pursuant to the NSF Act and the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

TIME AND DATE: Friday, April 29, 2022, from 10:30-11:00 a.m. EDT.

PLACE: This meeting will be held by teleconference organized through 
the National Science Foundation.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda is: Committee Chair's Opening 
Remarks; Update on NSF's FY 2023 Budget Request.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Point of contact for this meeting 
is: Chris Blair, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9aaaba5a8a0bb89a7baafe7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5d6d7d9d4dcc7f5dbc6d39bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>, 703/292-7000. Members of the public 
can observe this meeting through a You Tube livestream. Meeting 
information including a You Tube link is available from the NSB website 
at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/index.jsp#up.

Chris Blair,
Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.
[FR Doc. 2022-09045 Filed 4-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Lucille Faith DUNCAN, petitioner, v. Alana BOYLES, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Center.

No. 17-414.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
# L_2013231EN.01001501.xml

| 29.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 231/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 231/15

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 41/2013

of 15 March 2013

amending Annex XI (Electronic communication, audiovisual services and information society) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Decision 2006/215/EC (1), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, expired on 1 January 2011 and consequently the reference thereto should be deleted from the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Decision 2006/215/EC (1), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, expired on 1 January 2011 and consequently the reference thereto should be deleted from the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Council Recommendation 84/550/EEC (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, ceased to have effect by virtue of Council Directive 90/531/EEC (3), which was incorporated into the EEA Agreement, and consequently Council Recommendation 84/550/EEC should be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Council Recommendation 84/550/EEC (2), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, ceased to have effect by virtue of Council Directive 90/531/EEC (3), which was incorporated into the EEA Agreement, and consequently Council Recommendation 84/550/EEC should be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (3) | Council Resolution 92/C 8/01 (4), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, has become obsolete and is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Council Resolution 92/C 8/01 (4), which is incorporated into the EEA Agreement, has become obsolete and is consequently to be repealed under the EEA Agreement.

| (4) | Annex XI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Annex XI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The texts of points 5o (Commission Decision 2006/215/EC), 12 (Council Recommendation 84/550/EEC) and 17 (Council Resolution 92/C 8/01) of Annex XI to the EEA Agreement are deleted.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 16 March 2013, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2013.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 80, 17.3.2006, p. 74.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 298, 16.11.1984, p. 51.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 297, 29.10.1990, p. 1.

3

(4)  
  OJ C 8, 14.1.1992, p. 1.

4

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
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

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  Hornby  International  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB A for the period  ending June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Maureen Brogan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this  certification as of the
3rd day of August 2004.


/s/ Maureen Brogan
----------------------------
Maureen Brogan
Chief Financial Officer
1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 9 - 0 9 1 - CV F& R AU T O, I NC . AP P E L L ANT V . ARLI NG TON I ND EP ENDENT SC H O O L DI STR I C T, CI TY O F A R L IN G T O N , T A R R A N T C O U N T Y , TA RRA N T C O U N TY CO LL EG E DI STRI CT, AN D TA RRAN T CO UN TY HO SPI TAL DI STRI CT APPE L L EE S

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 236TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l antF & R A ut o, I nc. at t em pt s t o appeal f r om t he t r i al cour t ’ s f i nal j udgm enti n f avo rofA ppe l l ees A r l i ngt on I nde pen den tSchoo l D i st r i ct , Ci t y of A rl i n g to n , T a rr a n t C o u n ty, T a rr a n t C o u n ty C o l l e g e D i stri c t, an d T a rr a n t C o u n ty2 ... The l et t eral so i nd i ca t ed thatt he not i ce ofap pea l w asde f ec t i ve f or

f ai l i ng t o contai n a cert i f i cat e ofservi ce, and i tasked F & R A ut o t o i ncl ude an am ended not i ce ofappeal w i t h t he r esponse. Th e res pon se di d not i ncl ude an a m e n d e d n o t ic e o fa p p e a l. 2 Hos pi t a l Di s t r i c t . Th e t r i a l c ou rt ’ s j ud gm e ntw a s s i gn e d on Dec e m ber18, 20 08 . F & R A ut o di d not f i l e a m ot i on f or new t r i al . Th e noti ce ofappeal w as t he r e f or e d ueo n Ja nu a r y 19, 2009, buti tw a s notf i l e d un t i l M a r c h 16, 2009 . S ee Te x. R. App . P. 26. 1. O n M a r c h 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 , w e n o t if ie d F& R A u t o o fo u rc o n c e r n t h a tt h is cou rtm ay notha ve j ur i sd i ct i on ov ert he app ea l an d i nf or m ed i tt hatunl es s i tor any par t y desi r i ng t o conti nue th e appeal f i l ed w i t h t he cour ta r esponse s h o w in g a re a s o n a b le e x p la n a t io n f o rt h e la t e f ilin g o f t h e n o t ic e o fa p p e a l, t h is a p p e a l w o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d f o rw a n to fj u r i s d i c t i on. 2 S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 26. 3( b) , 42. 3( a) . F & R Aut o f i l ed a r es pons e, but i t doe s nots t at e g r oundsf or exe r ci si ng j ur i sd i ct i on ov ert he app ea l . Accor di ngl y, w e d i sm i sst he appe al f or w a n t o f j u ri s d i c ti o n . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 2 .3 (a ), 4 3 .2 (f).

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 23, 2009