alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LOUIS ROSEBORO

No. 105

(Filed 7 September 1971)

Homicide § 31; Criminal Law § 135— first-degree murder — death sentence — remand for sentence of life imprisonment

Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, a first-degree murder case in which the defendant received the death sentence is remanded to the superior court with direction that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment in the State’s prison.

Justices Higgins and Lake dissenting.

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.

BRANCH, Justice.

At the trial of defendant, Robert Louis Roseboro, at April 28, 1969 Criminal Session of the Superior Court of Cleveland County, North Carolina, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and thereupon the court pronounced judgment which imposed a death sentence. Upon defendant’s appeal, this Court found “No error” in the trial and judgment. *State v. Roseboro,*276 N.C. 185, 171 S.E. 2d 886 (1970). On June 28, 1971, upon its consideration of defendant’s petition for writ of *certiorari,*the Supreme Court of the United States entered the following order: “The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment, insofar as it imposes the death sentence, is reversed, *United States v. Jackson,*390 U.S. 570 (1968), *Pope v. United States,*392 U.S. 651 (1968), and the case is remanded for further proceedings.” *Robert Louis Roseboro, Petitioner v. North Carolina,*403 U.S. 948, 29 L. Ed. 2d 860, 91 S.Ct. 2289 (1971).

Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, this cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Cleveland County with directions to proceed as follows:

1. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Cleveland County will cause to be served on the defendant, Robert Louis Roseboro, and on his attorneys of record, notice to appear during a session of said superior court at a designated time, not less than ten days from the date of the order, at which time, in open court, the defendant, Robert Louis Roseboro, being present *392in person and being represented by his attorneys', the presiding judge, based on the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree returned by the jury at the trial at the April 28, 1969 Criminal Session, will pronounce judgment that the defendant Robert Louis Roseboro, be imprisoned for life in the State’s prison.

2. The presiding judge of the superior court of Cleveland County will issue a writ of *habeas corpus*to the official having custody of the defendant, Robert Louis Roseboro, to produce him in open court at the time and for the purpose of being present when the judgment imposing life imprisonment is pronounced.

Remanded for judgment.

Justices Higgins and Lake dissent for the reasons stated in their separate dissenting opinions filed this day in *State v. Hill, ante*371, 183 S.E. 2d 97 (1971).
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-03355-LTS Document 12 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 9 of 9
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1]

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Allixon International Corp. (“AXCP”). The Commission is concerned that AXCP and/or certain of its shareholders may have unjustifiably relied on Rule 504 of Regulation D and/or provisions of Regulation S of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) in conducting an unlawful distribution of AXCP securities that failed to comply with the resale restrictions of Rule 144 and/or Regulation S of the Securities Act. AXCP, a company that has made no public filings with the Commission or the NASD, is quoted on the Pink Sheets, under the symbol AXCP, and has been the subject of spam e-mail touting the company's shares. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. e.s.t. November 17, 2005 through 11:59 p.m. e.s.t., on December 1, 2005. 

By the Commission. 

Jonathan G. Katz, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 05-23079 Filed 11-17-05; 12:25 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2071 

AN ACT 

To repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 2071 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Repealing Existing 

3 Substandard Provisions Encouraging Conciliation with 

4 Tribes Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE LAWS RELATING 

6 TO INDIANS. 

7 (1) Section 2080 of the Revised Statutes (25 

8 U.S.C. 72) is repealed. 

9 (2) Section 2100 of the Revised Statutes (25 

10 U.S.C. 127) is repealed. 

11 (3) Section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 

12 Stat. 449, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 128), is repealed. 

13 (4) The first section of the Act of March 3, 

14 1875 (18 Stat. 424, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 129), 

15 is amended under the heading ‘‘CHEYENNES 

16 AND ARAPAHOES.’’ by striking ‘‘; that the Sec17 retary of the Interior be authorized to withhold, 

18 from any tribe of Indians who may hold any captives 

19 other than Indians, any moneys due them from the 

20 United States until said captives shall be surren21 dered to the lawful authorities of the United 

22 States’’. 

23 (5) Section 2087 of the Revised Statutes (25 

24 U.S.C. 130) is repealed. 

25 (6) Section 3 of the Act of March 3, 1875 (18 

26 Stat. 449, chapter 132; 25 U.S.C. 137), is repealed. 
3 

†S 2071 ES

1 (7) Section 2101 of the Revised Statutes (25 

2 U.S.C. 138) is repealed. 

3 (8) Section 7 of the Act of June 23, 1879 (21 

4 Stat. 35, chapter 35; 25 U.S.C. 273), is repealed. 

5 (9) The first section of the Act of March 3, 

6 1893 (27 Stat. 612, chapter 209), is amended— 

7 (A) under the heading ‘‘MISCELLA8 NEOUS SUPPORTS.’’ (27 Stat. 628; 25 

9 U.S.C. 283), by striking the last 2 undesig10 nated paragraphs; and 

11 (B) under the heading ‘‘FOR SUPPORT 

12 OF SCHOOLS.’’ (27 Stat. 635; 25 U.S.C. 

13 283), by striking the second undesignated para14 graph. 

15 (10) Section 18 of the Act of June 30, 1913 

16 (38 Stat. 96, chapter 4; 25 U.S.C. 285), is amended 

17 by striking the tenth undesignated paragraph. 

18 (11) The Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 325, 

19 chapter 3504), is amended under the heading ‘‘COM20 MISSIONER.’’ under the heading ‘‘I. GENERAL 
4 

†S 2071 ES

1 PROVISIONS.’’ (34 Stat. 328; 25 U.S.C. 302) by 

2 striking the fourth undesignated paragraph. 

Passed the Senate November 18, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2071 

AN ACT 

To repeal certain obsolete laws relating to Indians.
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (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/              Tracy              Sperry                                                                  |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| Tracy                  SperryActing                  Chief Financial OfficerMarch                  31, 2008 |   |   |

----
#### STATE v. HODGEN

No. 127 PC.

Case below: 47 N.C. App. 329.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of timely filing 30 March 1982.
#### STATE v. BENNETT

No. 12 PC.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 42.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 7 September 1971.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00425

- CV

In re Ronny Gene Smith

OR I GINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Ronny Gene Smith, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justic e, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of miscellaneous issued related to

his prosecution and conv iction . Having reviewed the p etition and the record provided, we deny

the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8 (a)

.

T he pe tition do es not make cle ar the precise nature of the r elief sought or the

person or persons to wh om the requested writ should issue. To the extent Smith seeks relief

that is w ithin this Court ’s jurisdiction to gra nt
, it is the relator’s burden to proper ly request

and establish entitlement to such relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.

1992); In re Roberts , No. 03

- 12

- 00513

- CV, 2012 WL 3629367, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin

Aug. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem . op.); see Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 42 6 (Tex. App.

—
Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ

of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). “In this

regard, the relator must provide the reviewing court with a re cord sufficient to establish his2 right to mandamus relief.” Roberts , 2012 WL 3629367

, at * 1 (citing Walker

,

827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Blakeney

, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texa rkana 2008,

orig. proceeding)); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k) (spe ci fying r equired contents for

appendix), 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file with petition “a certified or sworn copy of every

document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief a nd that was filed in any

underlying proceeding”). Smith , however, has n ot prov ided this Court with any copies of

his motions or any other documents, let alone file

- stamped copies to show that a properly

filed motion is pending before the trial court.

Based on the record that Smith has provided, we conclude that he has faile d to

show his entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his petition for writ of

mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_ ___________ ______________________________ Ros a Theofanis , Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theo fa nis

Fil ed: July 21, 2023
#### COLE v. SORIE

No. 238 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 485.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 September 1979.
| 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 the results of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | NORTH AMERICAN GALVANIZING & COATINGS, INC.(Registrant) |                                                              |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                        |                                                              |   |
|   | By:                                                         | /s/ Ronald J. Evans                                          |   |
|   |                                                        | President andChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |   |

|   |   |                                                                   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                   |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Beth B. Hood                                                  |   |
|   |   | Vice President andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |   |
|   |   |                                                                   |   |
|   |   |                                                                   |   |
Case 7:07-cv-03508-MDF Document 9 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Brian M. NeSmith, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Blue Coat Systems, Inc.; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 26, 2009



/s/    BRIAN M. NESMITHBrian M. NeSmithPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1994 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1994

  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small 
     business investment companies, subject to the approval of the 
      appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 26, 2019

 Mr. Young (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, and Mr. Risch) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the 
amount that certain banks and savings associations may invest in small 
     business investment companies, subject to the approval of the 
      appropriate Federal banking agency, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Investing in Main Street Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. INVESTMENT IN SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANIES.

    Section 302(b) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 
U.S.C. 682(b)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the 
        end the following: ``or, subject to the approval of the 
        appropriate Federal banking agency, 15 percent of such capital 
        and surplus'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the period at the 
        end the following: ``or, subject to the approval of the 
        appropriate Federal banking agency, 15 percent of such capital 
        and surplus''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Appropriate federal banking agency defined.--In this 
        subsection, the term `appropriate Federal banking agency' has 
        the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Federal Deposit 
        Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813).''.
                                 <all>
```
FACE IT 

(. 

 La seguridad de los 

trabajadores es importante

cuando trabajan cerca de los 

cables del tendido eléctrico

Un trabajador de mantenimiento se electrocutó cuando estaba instalando cables para 

cámaras de seguridad y su hombro hizo contacto con un cable eléctrico energizado.

 Los empleadores pueden tomar medidas para mantener la seguridad de los 

trabajadores cerca de los cables del tendido eléctrico.

Recomendaciones para la prevención de lesiones

Determine y comunique las 

distancias seguras para los 

trabajadores y los equipos cuando 

se trabaja cerca de los cables del 

tendido eléctrico.

Comuníquese con la empresa de 

electricidad si los trabajadores no 

pueden establecer y mantener 

distancias seguras de los cables del 

tendido eléctrico.

Elabore e implemente 

procedimientos operativos y 

planes de comunicación para los 

trabajadores que no tienen un 

acompañante.

Asegúrese de que los 

trabajadores usen guantes con 

aislante, cobertores, 

herramientas y protección para 

los ojos que sean adecuados.

Proporcione capacitación para 

que los trabajadores sean 

competentes y estén calificados 

para trabajar con la electricidad.

 Capacite y evalúe a los 

trabajadores en la selección, 

inspección y operación segura de 

camiones grúa con canastilla 

elevada.

Vea el Informe FACE 2019-01 para obtener más 

información:

cdc.gov/niosh/face/in-house/full201901.html

Mayo del 2022

Fatality 

Assessment 

and Control 

Evaluation 

Program 

FACE
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134345 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134345 COA: 276861 Macomb CC: 2006-000455-FC TIMOTHY MARK YAX, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 9, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0917 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2007

Clerk
`Exhibit 31(b)
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Alex Budzinsky, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Decorize, Inc., certify that:

     1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Decorize, Inc.;

     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.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
         material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
         cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
         this report; and

     4.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
         establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
         defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the
         registrant and have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
                  that material information relating to the registrant,
                  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
                  by others within those entities, particularly during the
                  period in which this report is being prepared;


                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
                  controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to
                  the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


                  (c) presented in this report our conclusions about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based
                  on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;


     5.  The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
         on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
         audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
         performing the equivalent functions):


                  (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
                  internal controls which could adversely affect the
                  registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
                  financial data and have identified for the registrant's
                  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


                  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
                  management or other employees who have a significant role in
                  the registrant's internal controls; and


Date: September 26, 2003


/s/ Alex Budinsky
-----------------------------------------
Alex Budzinsky
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)`
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-03545-DAB Document 22 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 8 of 8