alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William Brown *et al.,*plaintiffs in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

1. Hog stealing is not such an offense as can be settled in 4609th section of the Revised Code.

2. In a charge of larceny, the property stolen was described as “ one black pig, white listed ; and one white pig, with a blue rump ; both without ear marks; and, together, of the value of $2 00, the property of James Drake:”

*Held,*That this description is sufficient.

Criminal Law. Before Judge Harvey. Oglethorpe Superior Court. April Term, 1871.

These defendants were indicted in the District Court for hog stealing. The animals were described in the indictment as being “the personal goods of William Agee, to-wit: one black pig, white listed, one white pig, with blue rump ; said pigs having no ear marks, of the value of two dollars.” The defendants pleaded that they had settled the case with Agee before prosecution. This plea was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained. The defendants were convicted. They moved an arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the description of the stolen property was insufficient. This motion was overruled. *Oertiorari,*on the grounds *that*the Court erred in said rulings, was dismissed, and the judgment affirmed. This is assigned as error.

John C. Reed, for plaintiffs in error.

H. T. Morton, District Attorney ; J. D. Matthews, for the State.

As to settlement, R. Code, secs. 4609,4336, 2790, 199; Cobb’s New Digest, 864. As to description, Revised Code, sections 4332, 4334. 1 Gr. on Ev., section 440 ; Ch. Cr. L., section 236: 10 Ga. R., 56 ; Taylor *vs.*State, this term.

McCay, Judge.

I. Larceny, even of hogs, was, by section 105, of the old *301Code, punishable by fine and imprisoment. It may • be punished by fine *and*imprisonment, under the Act of 1865, providing a general punishment for all misdemeanors. This offense was not, therefore, one that could be settled under section 4609 of the Code. There are other objections to this plea of settlement, but this is sufficient.

2. The description of a thing must be always one of degree. It would be an encouragement to crime to require every imaginable mark of identity to be mentioned. Certainty to a reasonable intent is all the law requires.

In this case, the animal is called a *pig,*a designation which indicates, to *some extent,*its age and size. Its color is given, and that it had a white list around the neck. It is added, that it was not marked. The sex is not mentioned, but as was well said in the argument, the sex of a *pig*is not apt to be noticed. We think the description sufficient. The Code does not require the sex to be stated, as in the larceny of a horse. We think the size, age, color, prominent flesh mark, the statement that there was no ear mark, and that both pigs, together, were worth $2 00, is sufficient.

Judgment affirmed.
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 of NanoSensors, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted Wong, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by 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.

By: /s/ Ted Wong
    --------------------------------------
    Ted Wong, Chief Executive Officer
    (principal executive officer and principal financial officer)
    August 29, 2005


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5927-5928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2069]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R04-OAR-2004-KY-0001-200425(w); FRL-7868-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Kentucky: 
1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Update for Edmonson Area; Withdrawal of 
Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final 
rule published December 17, 2004, (69 FR 75473) approving revisions to 
the Edmonson County portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on August 24, 2004. The 
submittal provides the 10-year update to the original 1-hour ozone 
maintenance plans for three 1-hour ozone maintenance areas, including 
the Edmonson County Maintenance Area, and also provides revised 2004 
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) and establishes 2015 MVEBs. EPA 
stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comment by 
January 18, 2005, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA 
subsequently received adverse comment. EPA will address the comment in 
a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also

[[Page 5928]]

published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75495). EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule is withdrawn as of February 4, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Planning 
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. ((404) 562-9031 (phone) or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e886879c899a8189868681c685818b808d848da88d9889c68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8be5e4ffeaf9e2eae5e5e2a5e6e2e8e3eee7eecbeefbeaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a> (e-mail).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 24, 2005.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 05-2069 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-11129 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL EARL HILL, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CR-361-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Earl Hill, federal prisoner # 27877-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his FED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4) motion for relief from judgment. Following his guilty plea to one count of securities fraud and one count of mail fraud, Hill was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 60 months on each count, to be served consecutively and to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.No. 05-11129 -2- Hill argues that, in light of Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005) , his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced, that the enhancement of his sentence caused a structural error in his sentencing hearing, and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enhance Hill’s sentence. Because Hill is challenging the validity of his underlying sentence, his FED . R. C IV . P. 60(b)(4) motion should have been construed as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Fierro v. Johnson , 197 F.3d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1999); cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby , 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2651 (2005). Prior to filing the successive motion, Hill was required to obtain authorization to file the successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255. Because Hill failed to obtain such authorization, the district court did not err in denying the motion. See Scott v. Johnson , 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 12.1

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                                                     |                                                       | FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, |        
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | -------
|
|
|Fixed Charges:                                                       |                                                       |                                |        
|                                                                     | Interest Expense                                      |                                | 6,534  
|Assumed interest element in rent                                     |                                                       | 459                            |        
|                                                                     |                                                       |                                |        
|Total fixed charges:                                                 |                                                       | 6,993                          |        
|Preference security dividend                                         |                                                       | 6,591                          |        
|                                                                     |                                                       |                                |        
|                                                                     | Total fixed charges and preference security dividends |                                | 13,584 
|                                                                     | Earnings:                                             |                                |        
|                                                                     | Income before income taxes                            |                                | 225,940
|                                                                     | Fixed charges (per above)                             |                                | 6,993  
|                                                                     |                                                       |                                |        
|Total earnings                                                       |                                                       | 232,933                        |        
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preference security dividends |                                                       | 17.1                           | X      

---
NO. 07-10-0042-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

FEBRUARY 22, 2010 

__________________________ 

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF 

JESSICA N. ROQUE AND JOSE LUIS ROQUE 

___________________________ 

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

NO. 2008-545,444; HONORABLE JUDY PARKER, JUDGE 

___________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jose Luis Roque filed a notice of appeal on February 1, 2010. 

However, he did not pay the required filing fee of $175. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 & 

Appendix. By letter of February 3, we informed appellant that failure to pay the filing fee 

within ten days of the letter might result in dismissal according to Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 42.3(c). Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). The deadline passed without payment of 

the filing fee. 

 Finding appellant has not paid the filing fee required by rule, and finding that we 

have given notice to all parties, we dismiss the appeal pursuant to Rule 42.3(c). 

 
It is so ordered. 

 

 James T. Campbell 

 Justice
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.333-117047 and 333-57103) of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. of our report datedFebruary 22, 2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 
| /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
|---------------------------------|
| New  York, New York             |
| February  22, 2006              |

 

----
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 of HPIL Holding (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Nitin Amersey, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to 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 as of the date and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | /s/
    Nitin Amersey      
| | ---------------------------
| | Nitin
    Amersey          
| | Chief
    Financial Officer
| |                            
| | August
    25, 2017        



The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
Willard BRIGGS, Employee v. DEBBIE'S STAFFING, INC., Employer, N.C. INS. Guar. Ass'n, Carrier; Employment Plus, Employer, N.C. Ins. Guar. Ass'n; and Permatech, Inc., Employer, Cincinnati Ins. Co., Carrier

No. 108P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Edward L. Pauley, Attorney at Law, Salisbury, for Briggs, Willard.

Lisa W. Bullard, Attorney at Law, Gibsonville.

John A. Tomei, Attorney at Law, John Tomei, Attorney at Law, Dayle A. Flammia, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Employment Plus, et al.

Gregory Newton, Attorney at Law, Tara D. Muller, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Permatech, Inc., et al.

Buxton S. Copeland, Attorney at Law, Tracy C. Myatt, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Debbie's Staffing, Inc., et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of April 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
#### Leonard Jerome SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D03-703.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 27, 2003.

Leonard Jerome Smith, Lake City, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linda Harrison, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Leonard Jerome Smith, appeals the trial court order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief alleging eight claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm as to claims one through seven, but reverse and remand as to ground eight.

Appellant argues that counsel was ineffective in advising him not to testify at trial. The trial court’s attachment of portions of the record identified in the state’s response did not conclusively refute this claim. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on ground eight.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

STONE, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
#### Anthony D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 81544.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District. Division Three.

July 22, 2003.

Mary S. Choi, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Anne E. Edgington, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, Jr., J„ LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Johnson appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*872We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
<Table>
<Caption>
Name                                                      State of Incorporation
----                                                      ----------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
Ajax Tocco International Limited                                    England
Ajax Tocco Magnethermic Canada Limited                              Ontario
Ajax Tocco Magnethermic Corporation                                   Ohio
Control Transformer, Inc.                                             Ohio
FECO, Inc.                                                          Illinois
General Aluminum Mfg. Company                                         Ohio
ILS Technology, LLC                                                   Ohio
Integrated Holding Company                                            Ohio
Integrated Logistics Company of Canada                            Nova Scotia
Integrated Logistics Holding Company                                  Ohio
Integrated Logistics Solutions, Inc.                                  Ohio
Integrated Logistics Solutions Limited                              England
Integrated Logistics Solutions LLC (1)                                Ohio
Park-Ohio Forged & Machined Products LLC (6)                          Ohio
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. (2)                                        Ohio
Park-Ohio Products, Inc.                                              Ohio
Pharmaceutical Logistics, Inc.                                        Ohio
Pharmacy Wholesale Logistics, Inc.                                    Ohio
PMC - Colinet, Inc.                                                   Ohio
PMC Industries Corp.                                                  Ohio
Precision Machining Connection LLC (3)                                Ohio
RB&W Corporation of Canada                                          Ontario
RB&W Manufacturing LLC (4)                                            Ohio
Southwest Steel Processing LLC                                        Ohio
The Ajax Manufacturing Company (5)                                    Ohio
The Clancy Bing Company                                          Pennsylvania
Tocco, Inc.                                                         Alabama
</Table>

(1) Doing business as RB&W Logistics, Arden Fasteners, Gateway Industrial
    Supply, Free Gate and Georgia Industrial Fasteners

(2) Doing business as Park Drop Forge, Ohio Crankshaft and Park-Ohio Forged &
    Machined Products

(3) Doing business as PMC Industries and M.P. Colinet

(4) Doing business as Delo Screw Products, RB&W Manufacturing, Sabina Mfg., and
    American Fasteners

(5) Doing business as Ajax Technologies and Forging Development

(6) Doing business as Kropp Forge
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1607-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-1607-DR), dated September 24, 2005, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 3, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 24, 2005: 

The parishes of Evangeline, Jefferson, and Plaquemines for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B] under the Public Assistance program, including direct Federal assistance.) 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050 Individuals and Households Program-Other Needs, 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.) 

R. David Paulison, 

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 05-20426 Filed 10-11-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P