alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEWEL DAVIS.

(Filed 20 March 1963.)

1. Homicide § 18—

Defendant is moit entitled to introduce evidence that deceased at different times assaulted specifically named persons in order to establish the dangerous and violent character of deceased as relating to the issue of self-defense.

2. Criminal Law § 161—

The charge of the court will be construed contextually as a whole.

Appeal by defendant from *Farthing, J.,*October 1962 Term of Jack.SON.

Defendant was 'charged in a bill of indictment with the murder of Lester Green. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter.

The facts to support the verdict and necessary to understand the challenge to the conviction are, briefly stated, these: Defendant went to the store of one Ferguson about 5:55 p.m. on 23 June 1962. He purchased a bag of flour, which he put on his left shoulder. Green came in the store about two or three minutes later than defendant. Green came up to defendant and said: “Jewel, I hear you are carrying a gun for me.” Deceased put his right hand on defendant’s left arm. Defendant said: “Get this man away from me.” He made a move with his right hand in the direction of his right hip. Deceased grasped defendant and encircled defendant’s arms. In the ensuing struggle defendant succeeded in getting his pistol. He shot deceased three times. One shot was in the chest, one in the back, and one in the hip. The last two shots were fired when the bodies were some five or six feet apart.

Defendant admitted he shot deceased, a man he knew to bear the reputation of being dangerous and violent. He claimed self-defense, justifying him in shooting and killing deceased.

*Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Barham for the State.*

*W. B. Francis, M. Buchanan III, and T. D. Bryson, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant offered evidence of deceased’s reputation for violence. Additionally he sought to elicit by cross-examination of the State’s witnesses the fact that deceased had committed specific violent assaults on persons other than defendant. The evidence was, on objection by the State, excluded. Defendant assigns as error the *139court’s refusal to permit him to show that deceased had at different times assaulted specifically named persons. The ruling was correct. It is in 'accord with prior decisions of this Court. *S. v. Morgan,*245 N.C. 215, 95 S.E. 2d 507, and cases there cited.

Defendant assigns as error a portion of the court’s charge, contending the court unduly limited his rig'ht of self-defense. When the charge is read as a whole, as it must be, we are of the opinion and hold that the law given the jury for its guidance in determining the merits of defendant’s claim of self-defense was as declared in *S. v. Marshall,*208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427, quoted with approval in *S. v. Fowler,*250 N. C. 595, 108 S.E. 2d 892.

Our review of the record fails to disclose error of which defendant can justly complain.

No error.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.06 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-31208

TEXACO EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, INC.; MARATHON OIL COMPANY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC.; UNITED DOMINION

INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as AMCA INTERNATIONAL CORP.,

formerly known as CLYDE DIVISION, 

Defendants-Appellees.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON, Each for its own self and

not one for the other, jointly and not severally and each

subscribing to Policy No. S611625 and each for its own self and

not one for the other, jointly and not severally and each

subscribed to Policy No. S611626; ET AL., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.; AMCLYDE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS

COMPANY, INC.; UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES INC., formerly known as

AMCA INTERNATIONAL CORP., formerly known as CLYDE DIVISION; J RAY

MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL VESSELS, LTD.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
2

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED

for the limited purpose of amending the text in the panel opinion

issued on May 5, 2006. In the section of the panel opinion

entitled “Conclusion,” the following text is added as footnote 16

at the conclusion of the final sentence of the third paragraph,

Texaco amended its complaint to add as a defendant United

Dominion Industries, Inc., a party also named as an

AmClyde-related entity defendant in Underwriters’

subrogation action. The district court concluded that

United Dominion was not an “other assured,” and

accordingly Underwriters’ subrogation claim proceeded

against United Dominion. That claim and other attendant

issues are not properly before us, and this opinion

should not be construed as addressing such issues.

However, because we remanded Texaco’s products liability

claims, we similarly grant Underwriters’ request for

remand of its subrogation claims against United Dominion.

On remand, nothing in this opinion precludes Underwriters

from requesting proper allocation of United Dominion’s

uninsured defense costs in connection with these claims.

The foregoing amendment does not affect a substantive change

in the judgment of the Court contemplated by the original panel

opinion issued on May 5, 2006. Upon the filing of this order, the

mandate on the original panel opinion as amended by this order

SHALL ISSUE.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, David A. Woodle, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of C-COR Incorporated;

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

3. Intentionally omitted;

4. Intentionally omitted;

5. Intentionally
omitted.



/s/    DAVID A. WOODLEDavid A. WoodleChief Executive Officer


Date: October 11, 2007
#### LAUTENSCHLEGER v. INDEMNITY CO.

No. 27 PC.

Case below: 15 N.C. App. 579.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 October 1972.
#### McCUISTON v. ADDRESSOGRAPH-MULTIGRAPH CORP.

No. 627PA82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 76.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 11 January 1983.
NYC LW DEbTMENT Fax : 2127880940 Oct 42007 6:28 P. 02 

i 

I r",ZZL- i 

, : c: 

i 

: 

i 

I,;

?,-r.F-z= 

11 ! -\.:b I :I 

!I rl ,_. :,~~~Gc~G-x,Y r 17 

Frn - 

: I . - j 

! THE CIM OF NEW 

MCCElhsltrL-20, LAW DEPARTMENT JONArn mm5 

-&md 100 CHURCH STREET pbe: (212) rn-33 

NEW YOU, NY 10007 hx: (212)7884%40 

mabik: (417) 37b3015 

dl :Mkwny~w 

I 

Octobtlls, 2007 

MEMO ENDORSED 

Unit& States Coutthouse 

Ncw Yorlc, NP York 10007 

1 Re: Bush v. Horn, et uZ. 

' 07 Civ. 3231 (RTS) (TM) 

Dear Judge qaas: 

j Thia office represents Ncw York 

the aboverefemwed math, in 

on his alleged exporn to asbestos. A telephone stid case manageftlent id& 

scheduled for October 11,2007 at 200 p.m. I witb on bW of ddmdant LL 

D&S Abatement, Inc. to mpatfully quest an adjomtnt of this^^ rlP;b 

second such request, the fmt of which was mted. As Mr. Bush is 

been able to obtain his consent to this request, 

I We seek this adjournment because, as is more fully expwncd in my October 4, 

Karas, Sullivan, and Bennan (a copy of which is endlosd), X have ~equested UA~U~, 

and consolidated with two other actions thaf havc bocn filed using a \0/+/07 

Wc anticipate drat more of these actions maj/ foI10w. Cmsc(+nrfIy, 

be adjourned for a period of time sufficicot to allow the Court to 

pro se actions, and to dctanhe whe* those casts should & 

+j 

I Tn addition, this office wishes to file an amended amwtr on behalf of Defendant 

Horn and is i$ the process of seeking Mr. Bush's written consent to do so. 

Finally, a review of Tvk Bush's complaint suggests that it may well be ~rn

mations in his and the 0th~ plaintiffs' actions prior to the commencement ~f 

discovery. 

Case 1:07-cv-03231-RJS-FM Document 23 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 2
NYC LRW DEbARMT Fax : 2127880940 Oct 42007 6:28 P. 03 

all of these reasons, we resptctfully submit that ae mentIy scheduled 

be adjourn& dl ludges Bmm, has, and Su1,fivm -kt the 

these, and poasibly other, related mes, aadthat it be re-scbduld, 

of the Court, based upcm the Court's datamination of how the 

: Thank you fbr your consideration ofthis request. 

uty Qlitf 

cral Litigation Division 

End. 

a: KM~ btzcr, ~sq. @y facaimae) 

~arrel) Bush (by mail) ! 

Case 1:07-cv-03231-RJS-FM Document 23 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69977-69979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22829]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[FDA 225-05-8004]


Implementation Plan on the Sharing of Confidential Information 
Between the European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection 
Directorate General and the United States Food and Drug Administration 
of the Department of Health and Human Services

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is providing notice of 
an Implementation Plan on the sharing of confidential information 
between the European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection 
Directorate General and the United States Food and Drug Administration 
of the Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose is for both 
participants to cooperate to facilitate the sharing of documents and/or 
information related to food safety.

DATES: The agreement became effective on September 23, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew E. Eckel, Office of 
International Programs (HFG-1), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 
Fishers Lane, Rockville MD, 20857, 301-827-4480; FAX 301-480-0716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and Implementation Plans between FDA 
and others shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is 
publishing notice of this Implementation Plan.

    Dated: November 10, 2005.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[[Page 69978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18NO05.000


[[Page 69979]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18NO05.001

[FR Doc. 05-22829 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-CFNP>
# C_2007065EN.01000101.xml

| 21.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4507 — Givaudan/Quest International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 65/01)

On 21 February 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4507. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4507. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
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 Quarterly Report of Ionics, Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas R. Brown,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the 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/ Douglas R. Brown
--------------------
Douglas R. Brown
Chief Executive Officer
August 13, 2003
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
Grey Wolf, Inc.: We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-6077,
333-14783 , 333-20423 , 333-36593, 333-39683, 333-86949, 333-40874, 333-106997, 333-113447,
333-114357, 333-116905, 333-114357, 333-113447, and 333-116905) on Forms S-3 and S-3/A and (Nos.
333-65049, 333-19027, 333-41334, 33-34590, 33-75338, 333-90888, and 333-120655) on Forms S-8 of
Grey Wolf, Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Grey Wolf, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, shareholders equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and all related financial statement
schedules, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on
Form 10-K of Grey Wolf, Inc. KPMG LLP Houston, Texas
March 15, 2005
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.53 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,407
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,264,104
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,199,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,597,542
<PP&E>                                      13,173,664
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,744,499)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,992,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,621,039
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,180
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,959,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,992,196
<SALES>                                     23,182,969
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,182,969
<CGS>                                       15,351,176
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,351,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,490,960
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              59,116
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,918,896
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,597,428
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,321,468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. McALISTER

No. 619P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 58.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 11 January 1983.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer of**

**Supreme Industries, Inc. Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Form 10-K”) for the year ended December 25, 2010 of Supreme Industries, Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Jeffery D. Mowery, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.

 

 

Dated:   March 25, 2011

 

 
| /s/   Jeffery D. Mowery   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Chief   Financial Officer |

 

----
#### KOEHRING CO. v. MARINE CORP.

No. 201 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 498.

Petition by defendant Indemnity Co. for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 21 June 1976.
#### STATE v. FRANKS

No. 122 PC.

Case below: 20 N.C. App. 160.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 February 1974.