alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. ROBERT AARON GARNER.

(Filed 29 October, 1958.)

1. Criminal Law § 154—

An assignment of error not supported by an exception is ineffectual.

2. Criminal Law § 156—

When the charge read contextually clearly presents the applicable principles of law in such manner as to leave no reasonable ground to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled, an assignment of error ■thereto cannot be sustained.

Parker, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendant from *Clark, J.,*January Term, 1958, of Granville.

Indicted for the murder of Murphy Ellis, defendant was put on trial for second degree murder or manslaughter as the evidence might justify.

The jury’s verdict was “Guilty of Manslaughter.” Thereupon, the court pronounced judgment imposing a prison sentence of 15 years, from which defendant appealed, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Mc-Galliard for the State.*

*Hugh M. Currin for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

There was ample evidence to support the verdict. Indeed, no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The *128assignments of error brought forward in defendant’s brief, referred to below, relate solely to the charge.

Assignments 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, based on exceptions of like number, are directed to designated portions of the charge. Assignment 9, based on Exception 9, is directed to the failure of the court to instruct the jury as set out in this exception and assignment. Assignments 11, 12, and 13 are not supported by exceptions; hence, no question of law is presented thereby. *Rigsbee v.*Perkins, 242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E. 2d 926; *S. v. Britt,*225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E. 2d 408.

Careful consideration of each of defendant’s assignments fails to disclose prejudicial error; for the charge, when read as a composite whole, indicates clearly that the applicable principles of law were presented in such manner as to leave no reasonable ground to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled. Hence, defendant’s assignments are overruled.

No error.

PARKER, J., not sitting.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 237 (Monday, December 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63548-63549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30047]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-255]


Consumers Power Company; Palisades Plant; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Consumers Power Company (the licensee) to withdraw its 
June 14, 1991 (as supplemented July 17, 1991, and January 10, 1992), 
application for a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-20 for the Palisades Plant, located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
    The proposed amendment would have modified the facility operating 
license to allow an exception to the Palisades Final Safety Analysis 
Report requirement to perform the maximum hypothetical accident 
analysis in accordance with the Standard Review Plan, Section 15.6.5, 
Appendix B, Subsection II(1). The Commission had previously issued a 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the 
Federal Register on September 18, 1991 (56 FR 47233). However, by 
letter dated October 9, 1995, the licensee withdrew the proposed 
change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated June 14, 1991, as supplemented July 17, 
1991, and January 10, 1992, and the licensee's letter dated October 9, 
1995, which withdrew the application for license amendment. The issue 
was addressed in a related safety evaluation dated January 9, 1995. 
Consumers Power Company will submit a revised maximum hypothetical 
accident analysis by January 1996. The above documents are available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local 
public document room located at the Van Wylen Library, Hope College, 
Holland, Michigan 49423.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of December 1995.


[[Page 63549]]

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marsha Gamberoni,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-30047 Filed 12-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
February 19, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BERNARDO ALVAREZ SERRANO, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00399-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Michael S. Leto, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
report on Form 10-K of the Corporate Backed Callable Trust Certificates, J.C. Penney Debenture-Backed Series 2007-1 Trust (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing, or similar, agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 30, 2015



|       |  |                            
|------ |  | ---------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Michael S. Leto        
|Name:  |  | Michael S. Leto            
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer and
|       |  | Executive Vice President   

|                                                              |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|(Senior Officer in charge of securitization of the Depositor)
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*George W. Payne, Respondent, v. The Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 1, Town of Flushing, Appellant.

Order ranting *mandamus*affirmed, with costs and isbursements. Opinion, by

Pratt, J.;

Barnard, P. J., not sitting.
DOB: DODID#: 

Diagnosis (Lay term): 

Gender: Job/MOS:

AD/NG/Reserve/Civilian/CTR: 

Deployment Length:

Waiver POC Name/E-mail/Phone: 

Instructions for Medical Provider (MD/DO, PA/NP, PsyD/LCSW): Include clinical summary and a thorough risk mitigation plan. Refer to 

Attachment B "Amplification of Minimal Standards of Fitness", Attachment C "Waiver Process" and Attachment D "Force Health Protection Guidance" for required 

information. Once signed, submit ENCRYPTED waiver packet to corresponding component surgeon found in Attachment C . Allow up to 15 days for processing.

Medical Provider Recommendation: ____ YES ____ NO

Signature: _________________________________

USSOUTHCOM Section ONLY

Waiver Approval: YES NO 

Signature:_____________________________________Date:___________________ 

Comments: 

DISCLAIMER: This document may contain confidential information exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1986 

{Public Law 99-570, 5 USC 552(B)} and is legally privileged under the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552(a), and/or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 

(PL 104-191) and its various implementing regulations. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure 

or failure to maintain confidentiality subjects you to application of appropriate civil and federal criminal sanctions. If you have received this correspondence 

in error, destroy any copies you have made and notify the sender.

Unit Commander

Signature: _______________________________

Deployment Destination: 

Expected Deployment Date:

Attachment A: USSOUTHCOM Medical Waiver Request Form (2022-2024)

Home Station:

Patient Name: Last, F MI:

USA/USN/USAF/USMC/USCG: 

Grade: Age:

Currently Deployed?

Previous waivers on file? Unit:

General Instructions: Please complete, sign form and attach any supporting medical documentation necessary to make a disposition.
#### TOM PEMBERTON et al. v. CITY OF GREENSBORO.

(Filed 16 November, 1932.)

Appeal and Error J e — As no substantial harm has or will result to appellant from order appealed from the judgment will not be disturbed.

Where on appeal from the court’s refusal to grant a written motion to strike certain allegations from the complaint on the ground of irrelevancy, it appears that the plaintiff is to file a bill of particulars and that no substantial injury has or is likely to result to the defendant on account of the refusal of the motion and that the matter can better be determined upon the filing of the bill of particulars, the order denying defendant’s motion will not be disturbed. G. S., 537.

Appeal by defendant from *Oglesby, J.,*at June Term, 1932, of Guilford.

Oivil action to recover compensation for the partial taking of plaintiffs’ lands, or damages for an alleged nuisance arising out of the construction and maintenance of a sewerage disposal plant.

The complaint alleges several elements of damage, a number of which the defendant asked to have stricken out, as irrelevant and immaterial. O. S., 537. The motion was allowed in part — the plaintiffs offering to file a bill of particulars — and the defendant appeals because his Honor “refused to strike from the complaint the irrelevant.or redundant matter set forth therein, as specified in defendant’s written motion.” There are eight specifications in the defendant’s motion.

*Frazier & Frazier and Broolcs, Parker, Smith & Wharton for plaintiffs.*

*Andrew Joyner, Jr., and Sapp & Sapp for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

It may be doubted whether the exception is sufficiently definite to enable us to review the different specifications, but however this may be, it is not discernible from the record that any harm has *515come, or is likely to come, to the defendant by reason of the court’s ruling. *Hosiery Mill v. Hosiery Mill,*198 N. C., 596, 152 S. E., 794; *Ellis v. Ellis, ibid.,*767, 153 S. E., 449.

It is readily conceded that nothing ought to be in a complaint, or remain there over objection, which is not competent to be shown on the hearing. C. S., 506; 21 R. C. L., 452. But the matter can better be determined after the bill of particulars has been filed. *S. v. Lumber Co.,*199 N. C., 199, 154 S. E., 72. See, *Hines v. Rocky Mount,*162 N. C., 409, 78 S. E., 510, for scope of recoverable damages.

. As no substantial right, of which the defendant can apparently complain, has presently been affected or impaired, the judgment will not be disturbed. C. S., 537; McIntosh, N. C. P. & P., 378.

Affirmed.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-51072

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN JOSE VASQUEZ-GARCIA also known as, Cesilio Miranda

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CR-1532-1

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Jose Vasquez-Garcia (Vasquez) appeals the 77-month sentence

imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for being found

unlawfully present in the United States subsequent to having been removed.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the within-guidelines sentence imposed by

the district court is unreasonable because the sentence is greater than necessary

to fulfill the sentencing purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Relying on Kimbrough

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 1, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-51072

2

v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), he argues that the illegal reentry

Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is flawed because it is not empirically based.

Regardless of whether a “particular Guideline is . . . empirically-based,”

this court “presume[s] a sentence within the current version of the Guidelines

to be reasonable, and the defendant must rebut that presumption to

demonstrate substantive unreasonableness.” United States v. MondragonSantiago, __ F.3d __ , No. 07-41099, 2009 WL 782894, at *3, *9 (5th Cir. Mar. 26,

2009). The district court imposed the 77-month sentence after commenting on

Vasquez’s continued disregard for the law after his last illegal reentry

conviction. Given the district court’s commentary, it cannot be said that the

court failed to consider the factors of Section 3553(a). Vasquez has not rebutted

the presumption that his sentence is reasonable. See Mondragon-Santiago, 2009

WL 782894 at *9.

AFFIRMED.
### NU M BER 13- 08- 0039 0-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG
BEN IGNO CER DA , JR . A ND F RA NC ISCO C ERD A , A pp ellan ts,
v . COASTA L KIN G, L TD ., A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 70t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Yañez, R odri guez, and B enav i des

M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am T his cause is before the Court on ap pellee ’s motio n to dism iss appe al. App ellant s, Beni g no C erda, J r. and Fransc is co Cerda , attempted to p er fect an appeal from an order g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment and ente ri ng deat h penal ty sa nct ions (“s ummary

j udg ment orde r”)ente red by the 370th Distri ct Court of Hidalgo Count y , Te x as, in c a u s e num ber2

C- 1930- 06- G( 1)

. On J anuar y 22, 2008, the tr ial cour t s ig ned a summar

y j udg ment order dispo sing of

a ll claim s a nd cause s o f a ction against app ellant s. A ppe llants failed to timely f ile a mo tion for new trial or motio n to m odif y judgme nt w ithin thirty days af ter the summ ary jud g ment o rd e r was si g ned. SeeTex . R . C iv . P. 329b( a)

. On F ebr uar y 22, 2008, appel lan ts filed an u nti mely moti on to mod ify t h e j u d gment. On Ma y 20, 2008, the t ri al cour t s ig ned a sec ond order g ra nti ng su mmary

ju d gment an d ent er ing deat h penal ty sanctio ns. The tr ial co urt’ s p len ar y power i n thi s matter

ex pired on Febr uar

y 21, 2008. SeeTex . R . Ci v . P. 329b(d)

. Acc ordin g ly , anyorders or jud g ments entered after thatdate are v o id. A ppel lan ts filed a no ti ce of appeal from t he M ay 20, 2008, modified order on June 19, 2 008. Pursuantto Tex . R . Ap p. P . 26. 1, ap pel lan ts’ noti ce of appeal w as due on Febr uar y 21, 2008, but was not fil ed unt il Ju ne 19, 2008. On J uly 10, 2008, the C ler k o f this C our t s ent n oti ce of

t h is defectso thatst eps could be take n to correct th e defect, if i t could be done . Appe llants w ere ad v ised th at, if the defect w as no t corrected within t en days f rom the d ate o f rece ipt of

t his Court’s lette r, the app eal w ould be dismissed

. App ellee has f iled a mo tion to dism iss indicat ing this Court doe s not ha v e juris d ic t io n. T o da te, n o respo nse h as be en rece iv ed f rom a ppe llants in re g ards to t he C our

t’ s l etter or appel lee ’s moti on todi smi ss . The Co urt, hav ing ex amined and fully co nsi dered th e d o cument s o n fil e, he re by GRAN TS appel lee ’s moti on to di smi ss . Acc ordin g ly , t he appe al is D ISM ISSE D FO R W ANT OF JUR ISDICT ION. P E RC U R I A M Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 16t h day

of Apr il , 200 9.
Exhibit 31.5

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT,
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Brian Hajost, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this report:
Amendment No.1 on Form 10-Q/A of SteelCloud, 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.

Date: October 21, 2005

| |  | By: /s/ Brian Hajost                | 
| |  | ----------------------------------- | 
| |  | Name: Brian HajostTitle:  President |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10723 Conference Calendar

NORMAN W. YOES, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RAY HALL, JR., Attorney at Law, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CV-461-Y

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Norman W. Yoes, Texas prisoner # 0249027, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. Yoes argues that appellee Ray Hall, Jr., Yoes’ court-appointed attorney, rendered ineffective assistance. Yoes seeks this court’s assistance in helping him obtain the appointment of substitute counsel.No. 02-10723 -2- To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Yoes must demonstrate a violation of his rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States committed by a person acting under color of state law. See Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. , 28 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 1994). Yoes’ court-appointed attorney is not a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 liability.
See Polk County v. Dodson , 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981); see also Mills v. Criminal Dist. Court No. 3 , 837 F.2d 677, 679 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Yoes’ complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim is
AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Yoes’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous resulted in Yoes’ second strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Yoes that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 28, 2016

a0620 

# Order

Clerk June 28, 2016

151553

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151553

COA: 324136

Wayne CC: 92

- 002078

- FC

MARY CADRY LEMONS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the def endant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                        1,418
<SECURITIES>                                  212,416
<RECEIVABLES>                                 265,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              479,048
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                479,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         136,828
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      12,100
<OTHER-SE>                                    330,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  479,048
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              148,989
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (148,989)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (148,989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (148,989)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Carreker Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending October 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terry L. Gage, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/TERRY L. GAGETerry L. Gage, Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | 

Dated:
April 30, 2003

---

QuickLinks