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

(Filed 24 May, 1950.)

1. Criminal Haw § 74—

Transcript of record on appeal is required to be filed fourteen days before the call of the district to which the ease belongs. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 5.

2. Criminal Haw § 80b (4)—

Where appellant does not docket the appeal or file transcript of the record on appeal within the time allowed, and fails to comply with mandatory rules of practice in the Supreme Court (Rules 5, 22, 21, 19 (3)) motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, but in a capital case this will be done only after a careful examination of the whole record fails to disclose error.

DefbNDANt’s appeal from *Burgwyn, Special Judge,*December Term, 1949, Wilson Superior Court.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

*A. 0. Diclcens and B. F. Mintz for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was tried under an indictment charging him with first-degree murder; and from a verdict of guilty as charged, without recommendation of mercy, and sentence of death thereupon, he appealed to this Court.

The record discloses that the defendant was tried at the term of Superior Court held in Wilson County beginning 5 December, 1949; and that verdict of guilty and judgment thereon was rendered 9 December, 1949.

Under Rule Five of the Practice of the Supreme Court, transcript of the record on appeal is required to be filed 14 days before the call of this, the Second District.

The defendant did not docket the appeal or file'such transcript of the record in this Court until 6 April, 1950, after the time had expired; at which time one typewritten copy of the case on appeal, along with the *199brief, was filed. In its assignments of error the brief makes broadside exceptions to the instructions to the jury without specific reference to exceptions thereto.

The Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with the mandatory Rules of Practice in this Court. Rule 5, Rule 22, 21, 19 (3), and other pertinent requirements as to appeal. Counsel for the defendant have been supplied with copies of the motion to dismiss. The Clerk of this Court at the request of the Court communicated with said counsel, and reply thereto does not indicate that any further steps will be taken in prosecution of the appeal.

As this is a capital case, the Court, as is its practice, has carefully examined the whole record and does not find therein any error. *S. v. West,*229 N.C. 416, 50 S.E. 2d 3; *Pruitt v. Wood,*199 N.C. 788, 156 S.E. 126; *S. v. Butner,*185 N.C. 731, 117 S.E. 163; *S. v. Watson,*208 N.C. 70, 179 S.E. 455; *S. v. Goldston,*201 N.C. 89, 158 S.E. 926.

The judgment of the court below is, therefore, affirmed, and the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1374]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0653; Airspace Docket 09-ASO-22]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Anniston, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule 
published in the Federal Register October 28, 2009 that modifies the 
Class E airspace at Anniston Metropolitan Airport, Anniston, AL.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 27, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support, 
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-5610.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for 
comments in the Federal Register on October 28, 2009 (74 FR 55449), 
Docket No. FAA-2009-0653; Airspace Docket 09-ASO-22. The FAA uses the 
direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where 
the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This 
direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were 
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written 
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received 
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on 
December 17, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this 
notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia on January 13, 2010.
Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-1374 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
EXHIBIT 31.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a
                      14(a)/15D-14(a) and SECTION
                     302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Joey DiFrancesco, President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) of Raven Moon Entertainment, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the
      Registrant;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant
and we 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
	c) presented in this quarterly 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent function):
	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.

Dated: May 26, 2008		/s/ Joseph DiFrancesco
				-----------------------
				Joey DiFrancesco
				Chief Executive Officer
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 1of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 2of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 3of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 4of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 5of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 6of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 7of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 8of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 9of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 10of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 11of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 12of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 13of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 14of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 15of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 16of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 17of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 18of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 19of 20

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4871-4    Filed: 11/26/19    Entered: 11/26/19 16:57:30    Page 20of 20
A95A0810.

#### ROOKS v. THE STATE.

(474 SE2d 769)

Decided July 17, 1996.

*Scott, Quarterman & Wells, Donald T. Wells, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Timothy G. Madison, District Attorney, Deborah S. Wilbanks, Robin R. Riggs, Assistant District Attorneys, for*appellee.

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

On direct appeal, this Court affirmed defendant’s conviction for making harassing telephone calls to his former wife but set aside his conviction for criminal attempt to commit aggravated stalking against the same victim, based on the same conduct. *Rooks v. State,*217 Ga. App. 643 (458 SE2d 667). The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and held that the crime of attempt to commit aggravated stalking was not a legal impossibility and that the evidence adduced below was sufficient to authorize defendant’s conviction. *State v. Rooks,*266 Ga. 528, 529 (2, 3) (468 SE2d 354). Accordingly, our original judgment is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Andrews and Blackburn, JJ, concur.*
ex1033.htm


    Exhibit 10.33

    

     

     

     

     

     

    May 28,
2009

    


    


    Donald
Walker

    521
Railroad Avenue

    Fairfield,
California 94533

    


    Re:    Amendment to Employment
Agreement

    


    Dear
Donnie:

    


    This
letter shall serve as an amendment to the employment agreement effective as of
February 1, 2007 between Employee and Employer (the “Agreement”). Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the
Agreement.  Section 4.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and
replaced in its entirety with the following:

    


    “4.1.  Employer
shall pay to Employee an annual salary (the “Salary”) of One Hundred Sixty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($165,000.00), payable in equal installments at the end of such
regular payroll accounting periods as are established by Employer, or in such
other installments upon which the parties hereto shall mutually agree, and in
accordance with Employer’s usual payroll procedures, but no less frequently than
monthly.”

    


    The
foregoing amendment shall be effective as of May 1, 2009.

     

    
      
        	 	WPCS International
      Incorporated	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	
                By:
      

              	/s/ Andrew
      Hidalgo	 
	 	 	
                By:  Andrew
      Hidalgo

                Title:  Chief
      Executive Officer

              	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 


      

    

     

    Accepted
to and agreed this

    28th day
of May , 2009:

    


     

    
      
        
          	 	 	 	 	 
	
                  /s/
      Donald Walker

                	 	 	
                   

                	 
	
                  Donald
      Walker
#### John Wetterhahn, Appellant, v. Andrew J. Baltz, Respondent.

— Judgment of the County Court of Jefferson county affirmed on the opinion of the county judge.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5222 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5222

To increase the unit cap on the rental assistance demonstration of the 
  Department of Housing and Urban Development, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2014

Ms. Kelly of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the unit cap on the rental assistance demonstration of the 
  Department of Housing and Urban Development, 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 ``Rental Assistance Housing 
Preservation and Rehabilitation Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO RENTAL ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION.

    (a) Amendments.--The matter in the heading ``Rental Assistance 
Demonstration'' in title II of the Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (division C 
of Public Law 112-55; 125 Stat. 673) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(except for funds allocated under such 
        section for single room occupancy dwellings as authorized by 
        title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act)'' each 
        place such phrase appears;
            (2) in the third proviso by inserting ``in excess of 
        amounts made available under this heading'' after ``associated 
        with such conversion'';
            (3) in the fourth proviso--
                    (A) by striking ``60,000'' and inserting 
                ``150,000''; and
                    (B) by striking ``or section 8(e)(2)''; and
            (4) in the penultimate proviso by striking ``and 2013'' and 
        inserting ``through 2016''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply only to any amounts that are made available for fiscal year 2014 
or any fiscal year thereafter for carrying out the demonstration 
program established under the heading referred to in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.6.1





Exhibit 10.6.1





Amendment No. 3 to the .BIZ Registry Agreement


ICANN and NeuStar agree that the following modification is made to the 8 December 2006 .BIZ
Registry Agreement:


Appendix 6


[Old Text]


B. Additional Second-Level Reservations. In addition, the following names shall be reserved at
the second level:


* All single-character labels.


* All two-character labels shall be initially reserved.


[New Text]


B. Additional Second-Level Reservations. In addition, the following names shall be reserved at
the second level:


* All single and two-character labels that were previously reserved by the
Registry in the Registry Agreement may be allocated through ICANN-accredited registrars, based upon implementation of a phased allocation
program as further set forth in Appendix 7.


Appendix 7


[New Text]


.BIZ Single and Two Character Phased Allocation Program (“Phased Allocation Program”). The
domain names included within the scope of the Phased Allocation Program shall be limited to
single and two-character .BIZ domain names. NeuStar reserves the right to not allocate all
single and two-character .BIZ domain names.


Pursuant to the Phased Allocation Program, NeuStar may elect to allocate the domain names via
the following processes: 1) request for proposals based on evaluation criteria, 2) auction, or
3) first come, first served registration.


The domain names allocated via the Phased Allocation Program are an exception to the Maximum
Service Fee described in Section 7.3(a) of the .BIZ Registry Agreement. Revenue derived from the
Phased Allocation Program will be considered in the calculation of the average annual price of
registrations for purposes of Section 7.2(a).


 







 




The parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first written below.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
		 	 	 	NEUSTAR, INC.	 	 
	ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	By:
	 	/s/ Kurt J. Pritz	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Bradley Smith	 	 
	Name:
	 	Kurt J. Pritz	 	 	 	Name:	 	Bradley Smith	 	 
	Title:

	 	Senior Vice President, Services
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	VP and Corporate Controller	 	 
	Date:

	 	1 June, 2009
	 	 	 	Date:
	 	May 26, 2009
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CertificationPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), eachof the undersigned does hereby certify that:

The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the“Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information containedin the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                 |                                              |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                      | /s/ David R. Carlucci                             |   |
| Date: August 3, 2007 | David R. Carlucci                                 |
|                 | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and   President |
|                 |                                              |
|                 |                                              |

 
|                      |                                                |
|----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                 | /s/ Leslye G. Katz                                  |   |
| Date: August 3, 2007 | Leslye G. Katz                                      |
|                 | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial   Officer |
|                 |                                                |

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as aseparate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to IMS Health Incorporated and will beretained by IMS Health Incorporated and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

#  

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5403 

To nullify certain guidance of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

and to provide requirements for guidance issued by the Bureau with 

respect to indirect auto lending. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014 

Mr. STUTZMAN (for himself, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. DAVID

SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. BARR, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. 

PETERS of Michigan, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. MURPHY of Florida, Mr. 

POSEY, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Mr. COSTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To nullify certain guidance of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and to provide requirements for guidance issued by the Bureau with respect to indirect auto 

lending. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reforming CFPB Indi5 rect Auto Financing Guidance Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5403 IH

1 SEC. 2. NULLIFICATION OF AUTO LENDING GUIDANCE. 

2 Bulletin 2013–02 of the Bureau of Consumer Finan3 cial Protection (published March 21, 2013) shall have no 

4 force or effect. 

5 SEC. 3. GUIDANCE REQUIREMENTS. 

6 Section 1022(b) of the Consumer Financial Protec7 tion Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5512(b)) is amended by add8 ing at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(5) GUIDANCE ON INDIRECT AUTO FINANC10 ING.—In proposing and issuing guidance primarily 

11 related to indirect auto financing, the Bureau 

12 shall— 

13 ‘‘(A) provide for a public notice and com14 ment period before issuing the guidance in final 

15 form; 

16 ‘‘(B) make available to the public, includ17 ing on the website of the Bureau, all studies, 

18 data, methodologies, analyses, and other infor19 mation relied on by the Bureau in preparing 

20 such guidance; 

21 ‘‘(C) redact any information that is exempt 

22 from disclosure under paragraph (3), (4), (6), 

23 (7), or (8) of section 552(b) of title 5, United 

24 States Code; 

25 ‘‘(D) consult with the Board of Governors 

26 of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5403 IH

1 Trade Commission, and the Department of Jus2 tice; and 

3 ‘‘(E) conduct a study on the costs and im4 pacts of such guidance to consumers and 

5 women-owned, minority-owned, and small busi6 nesses.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gerald Singleton, SBN 208783

John C. Lemon, SBN 175847

SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

450 A Street, 5th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: (619) 771-3473

Fax: (619) 255-1515

Email: gerald@slffirm.com

john@slffirm.com

Attorneys for SLF Fire Victim Claimants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY

Debtors

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case–Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF SUBPOENA ISSUED TO 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 24, 2019, Individual Claimants represented by

the attorneys listed above seek to serve a subpoena to produce documents, information, or objects on 

the Custodian of Records of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. A copy of the 

Subpoena is attached hereto as “EXHIBIT 1”. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 24, 2019 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

By: /s/ Gerald Singleton

Gerald Singleton

John C. Lemon

Attorneys for the Singleton Law 

Firm Fire Victim Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3986 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 13:40:59 Page 1 of

5
EXHIBIT 1 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3986 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 13:40:59 Page 2 of

5
TBD

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3986 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 13:40:59 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3986 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 13:40:59 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3986 Filed: 09/24/19 Entered: 09/24/19 13:40:59 Page 5 of

5