alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. KEITH LAWSON.

(Filed 5 May, 1965.)

Appeal by defendant from *Mallard, J.,*November, 1963 Criminal Session, Columbus Superior Court.

The defendant, Keith Lawson, was charged with the felony of murder in the first degree in the killing of Bobby DeLane Hilbourn. The offense is alleged to have occurred on April 20, 1963. The evidence disclosed the deceased died on October 10, 1963. The Solicitor for the State and both defendant and his counsel stipulated that Bobby De-Lane Hilbourn died as a direct result of the gunshot wound inflicted on April 20, 1963.

At the trial the solicitor announced the State would not ask for a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, but only in the second degree. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. Both the State and the defendant introduced evidence, including a number of eye-witnesses to the shooting. The defendant, however, did not testify in his own defense.

The evidence of the State’s witnesses, if believed, would amply justify a finding the defendant first threatened the deceased with an open knife and then took from the automobile in which the deceased was then sitting a shotgun with which he inflicted the fatal wound at a time when the deceased was unarmed. The evidence favorable to the State made out a case of murder in the second degree.

The defendant’s witnesses, if believed, would permit a finding the deceased attempted to assault the defendant with the shotgun, the defendant attempted to disarm the deceased, and in the struggle for pos*405session the gun- discharged with the fatal result. The defendant’s evidence, if believed, would warrant an acquittal.

The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter. The court imposed a prison sentence of 18 to 20 years. After the verdict the defendant gave notice of appeal but, before it was perfected, withdrew it and entered upon the service of the sentence. In response to a petition we allowed the appeal to be docketed and argued here.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General for the State.*

*J. Wilton Hunt for defendant appellant. •*

Per Cueiam.

The defendant’s counsel (court-appointed for this appeal) has been diligent in reviewing the record of the trial. By proper exceptions and assignments of error he has challenged, both by brief and by oral argument, the trial court’s rulings on matters of law and legal inference of which his client complains, or of which the record furnishes ground for objection. After careful review, we conclude the court’s rulings on admissions and exclusions of evidence, as well as in applying the law to the evidentiary facts, were in accordance with the decisions of this Court. We are unable to find in this record any legal reason why the verdict should be disturbed.

No error.
# C_2011299EN.01001101.xml

| 11.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/11

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

2011/C 299/10

| Member State | Greece |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Athens–Zakynthos |
| Period of validity of the contract | 1 April 2012-31 March 2016 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 61 days after the day of publication of the notice of PSOs |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority |
| Directorate General for Air Transport |
| Air Transport and International Affairs Division |
| Section II |
| Vas. Georgiou 1 |
| 166 04 Athens |
| GREECE |
| Tel. +30 2108916149 / 2108916121 |
| Fax +30 2108947132 |
| Internet: http://www.hcaa.gr |

Member State

Greece

Concerned route

Athens–Zakynthos

Period of validity of the contract

1 April 2012-31 March 2016

Deadline for submission of tenders

61 days after the day of publication of the notice of PSOs

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority

Directorate General for Air Transport

Air Transport and International Affairs Division

Section II

Vas. Georgiou 1

166 04 Athens

GREECE

Tel. +30 2108916149 / 2108916121

Fax +30 2108947132

Internet: http://www.hcaa.gr

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2023. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 30, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0141. GA BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH, INC. v. GEORGIA ACCESS TO MEDICAL CANNABIS COMMISSION et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2023CV383107
#### SEBASTIAN v. HAIR STYLING

No. 91 PC.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 30.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 May 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 1 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 2 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 3 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 4 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 5 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 6 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 7 of 8

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 8-22      Filed 05/31/2007     Page 8 of 8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                              183,484
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    18,901,190
<ALLOWANCES>                        514,449
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 22,717,113
<PP&E>                          135,731,948
<DEPRECIATION>                   62,134,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  130,769,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            12,570,799
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                             66,734
<OTHER-SE>                       31,317,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    130,769,964
<SALES>                          31,583,663
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 31,394,772
<CGS>                            22,156,604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    22,156,604
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  4,780,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  572,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   4,103,874
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,685,113
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               2,418,761
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      2,418,761
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.40



</TABLE>
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

SHERRIE RUSSELL-BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00257-MP -GRJ

ROBERT H JERRY, II, LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW, THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, THE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 178, Consent Motion for Status Conference. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a), Defendants request that the Court schedule a

status conference hearing in this action at the earliest convenient date to ensure that this litigation

proceeds in an orderly manner. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), Defendants’ counsel has

conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel consents to a status conference hearing.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendants’ Consent Motion for Status Conference is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk is directed to schedule a status conference hearing regarding

compliance with the conditions of Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal and the status of

Case No. 2:10-CV-04017-SDW-MCA filed in the District Court of New Jersey.

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of February, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1212 

NEJIBA MUSTAFA AWEL,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A79-507-703)

Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shifa D. Soressa, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D.

Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior

Litigation Counsel, Song E. Park, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nejiba Mustafa Awel, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming the immigration judge’s denial of asylum. For

the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. 

Awel asserts that her testimony was credible and

corroborated, and was therefore sufficient to establish her

eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination

denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the

evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have

reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Awel fails to

show that the evidence compels a contrary result. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion to file a supplemental

appendix but deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 16, 2005, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ASTM International—Standards (“ASTM”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between July 2005 and November 2005, designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at                     *http://www.astm.org*.                

                    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 4, 2005. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50406).                

                    For additional information, please contact: Thomas B. O'Brien, Jr., General Counsel, at ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, telephone 610-832-9597, e-mail address                     *tobrien@astm.org*.                

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 05-23611 Filed 12-2-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-11-M
#### STATE v. DAVIS

No. 200 PC.

Case below: 52 N.C. App. 165.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 11 June 1981.
#### JERRY DALE WILLIFORD v. LINDA C. WILLIFORD (FRANCIS)

No. 64

(Filed 5 May 1981)

On discretionary review to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, reported pursuant to Rule 30(e) and filed 4 August 1980, affirming the denial by *Lyon, J.,*of defendant-wife’s motion to change custody at the 3 December 1979 Civil Session of Harnett County District Court.

On 23 July 1979 plaintiff-husband was awarded custody of the couple’s two children. This action was brought three months later, on 23 October 1979, when defendant-wife filed a motion in the cause seeking a change of custody. At the 12 December 1979 hearing on the motion, defendant testified that she had overcome the physical and emotional problems which she suffered at the time of the 23 July order. She testified that she could make a good home for the children in Corpus Christi, Texas, where she lived with her husband of four months. The only showing of change of circumstances in plaintiff’s care for the children was that his fiancee had begun to live with the family. Plaintiff admitted they were not married, but he said they were engaged. He explained he wanted to be more certain of his second marriage than he had been of his first. After finding facts, Judge Lyon concluded that defendant had failed to make a sufficient showing of changed circumstances to warrant change of custody, and he denied defendant’s motion. Upon defendant’s appeal, the Court of Appeals in an opinion by Judge Wells, Judges Parker and Hedrick concurring, affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion. We allowed defendant’s *179petition for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 on 7 October 1980.

*L. Randolph Doffermyre, III, for plaintiff.*

*Bryan, Jones & Johnson by James M. Johnson for defendant.*

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and the authorities there cited, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted.

The order granting discretionary review is vacated; the order denying defendant’s motion for change of custody remains undisturbed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

OF PANAMA CITY BEACH INC,

Plaintiff, 

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-10/RS-MD

BECO INC,

Defendant. 

_________________________________________ /

UORDER

The Parties’ Status Report (Doc. 85) advises that they are now awaiting the 

arbitrator’s ruling. It is ORDERED: 

1. Activity in this case is stayed until February 15, 2011. The parties shall file 

monthly status reports of the progress of the arbitration proceeding with the court 

not later than the 15th day of each month. 

2. Failure to complete arbitration not later than February 15, 2011, without good 

cause may result in a waiver of the right to arbitrate. Waiver may occur if a party 

acts inconsistently with the right to arbitration, such as undue delay, and in some 

way prejudices the other party. See Ivax Corp. v. B. Braun of America, Inc., 286 

F.3d 1309, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 2002); S&H Contractors, Inc. v. Taft Coal Col, Inc., 

906 F.2d 1507, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990).
ORDERED on January 19, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-20-2006

Doeblers PA Hybrids v. Doebler

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 04-3848

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Doeblers PA Hybrids v. Doebler" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1177.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1177
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-3848

 

DOEBLERS’ PENNSYLVANIA HYBRIDS, INC.

v.

TAYLOR DOEBLER, III, an individual;

DOEBLER SEEDS LLC d/b/a T.A. Doebler Seeds,

 Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs

v.

WILLARD L. JONES;

WILLIAM R. CAMERER, III,

 Third-Party Defendants

 Taylor Doebler, III, an individual, and

 Doebler Seeds LLC d/b/a T.A. Doebler Seeds,

 Appellants

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 03-cv-01079)

District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.

 
Judge Richard L. Nygaard assumed senior status on July 9, 2005. *

2

Argued June 30, 2005

Before: NYGAARD, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed March 23,

2006, be amended as follows:

Pages 51-52, Part V, the last sentence, which read:

Accordingly, the order of the District Court will be reversed,

and the matter will be remanded for further proceedings.

shall read:

Accordingly, the order of the District Court will be reversed

to the extent that it granted summary judgment and a

permanent injunction in favor of Doeblers’ Pennsylvania

Hybrids, Inc., and the matter will be remanded for further

proceedings.

By the Court,

/s/ D. Michael Fisher 

Circuit Judge

Dated: April 20, 2006
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2249 

AN ACT 

To allow the Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

Administration on the date of enactment of this Act 

to continue to serve as such Deputy Administrator. 

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

†S 2249 ES

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICE 

2 OF THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

3 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—An individual serving as Deputy 

5 Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration on 

6 the date of enactment of this Act may continue to serve 

7 as such Deputy Administrator, without regard to the re8 strictions specified in the 5th sentence of section 

9 106(d)(1) of title 49, United States Code. 

10 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

11 shall be construed as approval by Congress of any future 

12 appointments of military persons to the Offices of Admin13 istrator and Deputy Administrator of the Federal Aviation 

14 Administration. 

Passed the Senate July 24, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2249 

AN ACT 

To allow the Deputy Administrator of the Federal 

Deputy Administrator. ment of this Act to continue to serve as such Aviation Administration on the date of enact-
ex456





  EXHIBIT
4.56







	


Extension of Debenture Maturity Date


 


	

TO


 

	

Intellipharmaceutics
International Inc. (the “Company”)


 


	

RE:


 

	

Debenture
dated November 15, 2019, with an original face amount of US$250,000
issued by the Company to Dr. Isa Odidi and Dr. Amina Odidi (the
“Debenture”) and
the Maturity Date (as defined in the Debenture) of such
Debenture


 







 


The
undersigned hereby agree that the Maturity Date of the Debenture
(currently December 31, 2019) is extended to March 31,
2020.

 


DATED
effective January 31, 2020.

 


	/s/
Isa Odidi
	
 /s/ Amina
Odidi



	
Isa Odidi


	Amina Odidi
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

vs. 3:10cr18/MCR

ALEJANDRO GODINEZ-BUSTAMANTE,

 a/k/a “Alejandro Padron,”

 a/k/a “Emmanuel Hernandez”

 Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11,

Fed.R.Crim.P., and has entered a plea of guilty to the one count indictment against

him. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning the

subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable

and voluntary, and that the offense charged is supported by an independent basis

in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore

recommend that the plea of guiltybe accepted and that the defendant be adjudicated

guilty and have sentence imposed accordingly.

Dated: March 15, 2010

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed

within 24 hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to

object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. §

636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th