alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### S. F. DRY v. CHARLOTTE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY.

(Filed 22 February, 1933.)

1. Appeal and Error J d—

Where the charge of the court is not in the record it is presumed that it correctly instructed the jury upon all phases of the evidence.

2. Pood A a — Rule of liability for deleterious substances in bottled drink.

In this action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by foreign and deleterious substances in a bottled drink it *is held*that the facts bring the case within the rule of liability declared in *Perry v. Bottling Go.,*196 N. C., 175, and *Broom v. Bottling Go.,*200 N. C., 55.

Civil actioN, before *Finley, J.,*at March Term, 1932, of MeciíleN-bueg.

On 9 October, 1930, the plaintiff purchased a bottle of coca-cola from A. Alexander. The narrative of the facts is substantially as follows: “I took a couple of swallows of it and noticed it had a peculiar taste, and I looked at it and saw there was something in it. I spoke to Mr. Alexander and said: 'Something is wrong with this coca-cola, something is in it.’ ... We walked to the front and held it to the light and there was a fly in it. The fly seemed to be in a mashed condition and there was something white oozing from its body. . . This top was on it when I bought it. Immediately after I drank the coca-cola I turned deathly sick and vomited. Mr. Alexander opened the bottle I bought from him. I think he got it out of the ice box. I did not notice what he did with the cap when he pulled it off. He pulled it off on the side of the counter and just let it fall down, and then I took a couple of swallows.”

The merchant, Alexander, testified that he bought the coca-cola from the defendant. Another witness testified that on or about 17 February, 1931, he purchased coca-cola bottled by the defendant for his wife and that it contained some substance which burned her throat. Another witness testified that “last spring” he purchased coca-cola bottled by the defendant and found a spotted fly in the beverage. Another witness testified that in 1929 he sold the plaintiff a coca-cola bottled by the defendant which had a fly in it. Another witness testified that in February, 1929, he purchased a coca-cola bottled by the defendant that had paint in it.

The jury answered the issues in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the sum of $125.00. From judgment upon the verdict the defendant appealed.

*223
      *Q. T. Carswell and Joe W. Ervin for plaintiff.*

*J ohn M. Robinson and Hunter M. J ones for defendant.*

Pee. Cubiam.

The charge of the court is not in the record, and it is therefore presumed that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury upon all phases of the evidence. The facts bring the case within the rules of liability heretofore declared in *Perry v. Bottling Co.,*196 N. C., 175, 145 S. E., 14, and *Broom v. Bottling Co.,*200 N. C., 55, 156 S. E., 152.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30637]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--X Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 1, 1995, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), X Consortium, Inc. 
(the ``Corporation'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. 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, the new member of the Corporation is: Georgia Institute 
of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and the Corporation intends to file 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 15, 1993, the Corporation 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, 1993 (58 FR 59737). The last 
notification was filed with the Department on June 6, 1995. A notice 
was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 
Act on June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33849).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-30637 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### STATE v. WOODROW SMITH.

(Filed 22 May, 1940.)

1. Seduction. § 8—

It is not required that the “supporting evidence” of the promise of marriage coincide with the testimony of the prosecutrix as to the time the promise was made, since it is not required that the “supporting evidence” be direct, adminicular proof being sufficient.

2. Criminal Daw § 81c—

Excerpts from the charge will not be held for reversible error when the charge, construed as a whole, is not prejudicial to defendant.

Appeal by defendant from *Johnston, Special Judge,*at November Term, 1939, of Stahly.

Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with seduction under promise of marriage in violation of C. S., 4339.

From conviction and judgment thereon the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

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

*E. T. Bost, Jr., and W. E. Smith for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

The sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury is challenged only on one point, *i.e.,*whether the promise of marriage rests alone on the “unsupported testimony of the woman.” The time of the seduction is fixed at about the middle of March, 1939. The defendant says it took place in April. In two letters to the prosecutrix, one dated 18 May, 1939, the other 21 -June, 1939, the defendant admitted the promise. In the last letter he speaks of the promise as having been made “long time ago.” This, taken with the other evidence in the ease, would seem to meet the requirements of the statute. C. S., 4339. *S. v. Raynor,*145 N. C., 412, 59 S. E., 344; *S. v. Malonee,*154 N. C., 200, 69 S. E., 786. The “supporting evidence” need not be direct. Adminicular proof will suffice. *S. v. Cooke,*176 N. C., 731, 97 S. E., 171. Besides, there is evidence that the- defendant and the prosecutrix were “going together over a period of two or three months” prior to the alleged seduction, and that the prosecutrix had no other boy friends. *S. v. Moody,*172 N. C., 967, 90 S. E., 900; *S. v. Fulcher,*176 N. C., 724, 97 S. E., 2. The evidence pertaining to the character of the prosecutrix is conflicting. *S. v. Patrick,*204 N. C., 299, 168 S. E., 202.

*592There are two exceptions to the charge, which, standing alone, may be subject to some criticism, but viewed contextually they are not regarded as harmful to the defendant.

On the whole, the case appears to have been tried accordant with the applicable decisions, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
Exhibit 31.1**     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**           I, Michal D. Cann, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Washington BankingCompany;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability offinancial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: August 8, 2007 /s/ Michal D. Cann      Michal D. Cann  Chief Executive Officer
#### J. H. GURGANUS v. GREENVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.

(Filed 16 September, 1925.)

Appeal by named defendant from Edgecombe Superior Court. *Cranmer, J.*

Action by plaintiff against defendants to recover on an express contract to haul green and dry lumber. From a verdict and judgment for plaintiff tbe named defendant appeals. No error.

Tbis case was beard by tbis Court on a former appeal, and is reported in 189 N. C., 202.

*Henry Q. Bourne for plaintiff.*

*George M. Fountain for defendant.*

Per Cueiam.

Tbis case bas been tried in accordance witb tbe views of tbis Court, as expressed in tbe former appeal, *Gurganus v. Mfg. Co.,*189 N. C., 202, and tbe well settled rules of law; bence, there is

No error.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to

to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of SAVVIS, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                          
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------
|Date: October 31, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jeffrey H. Von Deylen
|                       |  |     |  | Jeffrey H. Von Deylen    
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer  



49
Exhibit  7.1  Britannia
Bulk Plc  Computation
of ratio of earnings to fixed charges  Year ended December 31,2007
  
  2006
  
  2005
  
  2004EARNINGSPretax income (loss)
  
  $
  47,550
  
  $
  2,626
  
  $
  8,560
  
  $
  7,628Fixed charges (computed
  below)
  
  24,755
  
  5,293
  
  1,537
  
  435Less capitalized interest
  
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  
  0Total adjusted earnings
  (A)
  
  72,305
  
  7,919
  
  10,097
  
  8,063FIXED CHARGESInterest expensed
  
  $
  23,296
  
  $
  5,122
  
  $
  1,353
  
  $
  271Interest capitalised
  
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  
  0Amortization of borrowing
  costs
  
  1,459
  
  171
  
  184
  
  164Estimate of interest in
  rent expense
  
  0
  
  0
  
  0
  
  0Total fixed charges (B)
  
  $
  24,755
  
  $
  5,293
  
  $
  1,537
  
  $
  435RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
  CHARGES (A) DIVIDED BY (B)
  
  2.9X
  
  1.5X
  
  6.6X
  
  18.5XExcess Amount
  
  $
  47,550
  
  $
  2,626
  
  $
  8,560
  
  $
  7,628
0802-0910920-1 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  The Board of Directors  U.S. Bank National Association We have examined management's  assertion, included in the accompanying  Report on Assessment of Compliance with  Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC's Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007,  except for  servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii), and 1122(d)(4)(iv)-(xiv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing  platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination  included  testing of less than all of  the individual asset backed  transactions  and securities that comprise the  Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform,   and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our  procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts  calculated or  reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.********In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the  aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed Securities platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.****/s/ Ernst & Young LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota February 12, 2008
#### Harry Speesman, Respondent, v. Ellen E. Peck and another, Appellants.

Judgment; order denying judgment for defendant, and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
#### George G. Dutcher, as Committee, etc.,Respondent, v. Henry A. V. Post, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dykman, J., dissenting.
#### Essie Tynan, Administratrix, Respondent, v. Henry E. Pierrepont, Jr., and another, Appellants.

—Judgment and urder denying new trialaffirnied, with costs Opinion by

Pratt, J.
#### Oliver MARTIN, Jr. and Joseph White, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Frank BLACKBURN, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-3149

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 27, 1978.

Oliver Martin, Jr., pro se.

Joseph White, pro se.

J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellees.

Before MORGAN, CLARK and TJO-FLAT, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

The appellants, inmates at Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, Louisiana, appeal the dismissal of their civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several state prison and corrections department officials. Appellants’ complaint challenges the manner in which the penitentiary’s *Adult Rules, Regulations and Disciplinary Procedures*were amended, alleging that the Louisiana Administrative Procedures Act, La.R.S. 49:951-968 was not followed.

As we have previously stated, “The claim that state officials have failed to follow the procedural provisions of state law, without more, does not aver a cause of action under § 1983. *McDowell v. Texas,*465 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir. 1972) (en banc).” *Shields v. Hopper,*519 F.2d 1131, 1132 (5th Cir. 1975). No matter how liberally the complaint in this case is construed, *Haines v. Kerner,*404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), no set of facts, if proved, would entitle the appellants to relief. Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of the action is correct. *Estelle v. Gamble,*429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); *see also Howard v. Lemmons,*547 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1977).

AFFIRMED.
#### Walter I. Bustin, Respondent, v. John Moore, Appellant.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, unless appellant serves proper papers and pays twenty dollars costs in twenty days.
Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc.-10ka


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
  
 In connection with the Annual Report of Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Kai GUI, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)           The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Dated this 9th day of September, 2011./s/ Kai GUIKai GUI, Director, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
13.1 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Britannia Bulk Plc (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Arvid Tage, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of this Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge: (1)
  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
  section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and 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/ Arvid TageArvid TageChief Executive OfficerMarch 26, 2008   This certification is
provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company or the certifying officer for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30513]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-123; RM-8669]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Winona, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of OARA, Inc., allots Channel 
274A to Winona, Texas, as the community's first local aural 
transmission service. See 60 FR 38785, July 28, 1995. Channel 274A can 
be allotted to Winona, Texas, in compliance with the Commission's 
minimum distance separation requirements without the imposition of a 
site restriction. The coordinates for Channel 274A at Winona are 32-29-
22 and 95-10-01. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective January 22, 1996. The window period for filing 
applications will open on January 22, 1996, and close on February 22, 
1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-123, adopted November 27, 1995, and 
released December 7, 1995. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is 
amended by adding Winona, Channel 274A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-30513 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F