alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE v. BULLY RODGERS, PETER LOCKLEAR and WEALTHY LOWRY.

(Filed 22 May, 1940.)

Criminal Law §§ 58, 81a—

A motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence, made in the trial court after decision of the Supreme Court affirming the judgment of conviction, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its refusal of the motion is not appealable.

*623Appeal by defendants from *Nimodcs, J.,*at January-Eebrnary Criminal Term, 1940, of RobesoN.

Motion by defendants for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence.

At tbe May Criminal Term, 1939, Robeson Superior Court, the defendants herein were tried and convicted of conspiracy, burglary in the second degree, and robbery with firearms. From judgments entered, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The judgments were affirmed in an opinion filed 13 December, 1939.

At the succeeding term of Robeson Superior Court following affirmance of the judgments on appeal, the defendants lodged a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence on authority of *S. v. Casey,*201 N. 0., 620, 161 S. E., 81, and *S. v. Starnes,*91 N. C., 423, 2 S. E., 441. The motion was duly considered and denied.

Defendants appeal, assigning errors.

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

*J. B. Carpenter, E. J. & L. J. Britt, and D. M. String-field for defendants.*

Per Curiam.

The motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no appeal lies to this Court from a discretionary determination of an application for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must be allowed on authority of *S. v. Ferrell,*206 N. C., 738, 175 S. E., 91, and *Jarrett v. Ins. Co.,*208 N. C., 343.

The case is not like *Crane v. Carswell,*204 N. C., 571, 169 S. E., 160, where the “newly discovered evidence,” as this phrase is defined in the law, was insufficient to invoke a discretionary ruling in favor of the movant.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 4.2


 


 


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM


 
We have issued our report dated December 13, 2022, with respect to
the financial statement of m+ funds Trust, Series 7-10 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No.
333-268436) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and
to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”. 




 


 


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois
December 13, 2022
#### DICEY ODEN v. ROBERT R. DAVIS.

(Filed 28 September, 1927.)

Appeal by defendant from *Granmer, J.,*at April Term, 1927, of CRAVEN.

Civil action to set aside deed for lot of land in the city of New Bern, alleged to have been fraudulently procured from the plaintiff by the defendant.

■From a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*793*Moore & Dunn for plaintiff.*

*Ward & Ward for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

Tbe controversy on trial narrowed itself to an issue of fact, determinable alone by tbe jury. A careful perusal of tbe record leaves us with tbe impression that tbe case has been beard and determined substantially in accord with the _ principles of law applicable, and that tbe validity of tbe trial should be sustained. All matters in dispute have been settled by tbe verdict, and no action or ruling on tbe part of tbe trial court has been discovered by us which we apprehend should be held for reversible error.

There is a sharp conflict in tbe evidence on tbe issue of liability, but this was purely a question of fact; tbe jury has determined tbe matter against tbe defendant; there is no reversible error appearing on tbe record; tbe exceptions relating to tbe admission and exclusion of evidence, and those to tbe charge, must all be resolved in favor of tbe validity of tbe trial; tbe case presents'no new question of law, or one not heretofore settled by our decisions; it only calls for tbe application of old principles to new facts. Tbe verdict and judgment must be upheld.

No error.
### Proposed Provision: D6. For spouses and children of retired and disabled workers becoming newly eligible beginning in 2030 and phased in for 2030 through 2039, limit their auxiliary benefit to one-half of the PIA for a hypothetical worker with earnings equal to the national average wage index (AWI) each year.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000076620-DEC-201208:24 AM
Document

Exhibit 10.1


CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY


Non-Employee Director Compensation for Calendar 2023


Board and Committee Retainer for Calendar 2023


$119,000 shall be paid in cash
$152,000 shall be paid in shares of Campbell stock


Additional Retainers for Board Chair, Committee Chairs and Audit Committee Members


In addition to the above Board and Committee retainer, the following amounts shall be paid 50% in cash and 50% in shares of Campbell stock:
																																																						
																		
						
	$350,000	Chair of the Board
	$30,000	Audit Committee chair
	$25,000	Compensation and Organization Committee chair
	$20,000	Finance Committee chair
	$20,000	Governance Committee chair
	$7,500	Audit Committee members (excluding the Audit Committee chair)





The retainers will be paid quarterly in arrears. Prior to the beginning of a calendar year, a non-employee director may elect to (i) receive shares of Campbell stock in lieu of the cash portion of any retainer (such election to be made in 10% increments) and/or (ii) defer all or a portion of any cash or stock retainer in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Campbell Soup Company Supplemental Retirement Plan.
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Automatic Increases |
|---------------------------------------|---------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Office of the Chief Actuary | Average Wage Index (AWI)   Historical document   |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |
|--|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) RAINTREE
RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
(B) FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001058737
<NAME> RAINTREE RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,063
<SECURITIES>                                     2,249
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,244)
<INVENTORY>                                        945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,876
<PP&E>                                           3,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (408)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,909
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,132
<BONDS>                                         97,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,079
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,909
<SALES>                                         39,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,907
<CGS>                                            8,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,790
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,238
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,037
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,552)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,452)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,452)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)
        

</TABLE>
# IV.B1

# IV.B2

# IV.B3

# IV.B4

# V.A1

# V.A2

# V.A3

# V.A4

# V.A5

# V.B1

# V.B2

# V.C4

# V.C5

# V.C7

# VI.G2

# VI.G4

# VI.G5

# VI.G6

# VI.G7

# VI.G8

# VI.G9

# VI.G10
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Increase the number of years used to calculate benefits for retirees and survivors (but not for disabled workers) from 35 to 40, phased in 2009-2017 |
|---------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2008 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified July 16, 2008 |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 12

- 00108

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G.N. and A.C.N., Minor Children

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008

- CI

- 17947

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE ANGELINI , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court ’ s opinion of this date, the trial court ’ s judgment is

AFFIRMED. Costs of court are assessed against Appellant.

SIGNED July 29, 2015.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### STATE v. R. J. JACKSON.

(Filed 3 November, 1943.)

Appeal by defendant from *Harris, J.,*at May-June Term, 1943, of Onslow.

The defendant was tried and convicted in Superior Court upon a warrant issued in the County Criminal Court of Onslow, charging a *861violation of the prohibition laws of the State. The defendant was also tried and convicted in the court below upon a similar warrant charging the unlawful sale of beer on or about 9 May, 1943, between the hours of 11:30 o’clock p.m., Saturday night, and 1:00 o’clock a.m., Monday morning. Defendant appealed both cases to the Supreme Court, being cases Nos. 362 and 363.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Patton •and Rhodes for the Stale.*

*J. A. Jones for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was not tried upon either warrant in the County Criminal Court; hence the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. However, when the respective cases were called in the County Criminal Court, the defendant demanded a trial by jury; whereupon the cases were transferred to the Superior Court. This procedure, upon a request for a jury trial by the State or defendant, being mandatory under the provisions of chapter 303, Public Laws ■of 1941, it is now conceded by the defendant that the procedure was proper and that the judgment in each case should be affirmed.

The judgment rendered below in each case is

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3266]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Patient Availability for Exclusive or Partially Exclusive 
Licensing of U.S. Patent

AGENCY: U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, White Sands Missile 
Range--Electronic Proving Ground, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), announcement is made 
of the following U.S. Patent for licensing. These patents are assigned 
to the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the 
Army, Washington, DC. Any license granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 
209 and 37 CFR Part 404
    U.S. Patent 5,341,146, titled ``Covert Remote Electronic Warfare 
Simulator.''

ADDRESSES: Commander, White Sands Missile Range, Electronic Proving 
Ground, ATTN: STEWS-EPG-TD, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613-7110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Michael J. O'Connor (602) 538-6068, or FAX (602) 538-6361.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This patent concerns a remotely controlled 
device which includes receiving and signal processing apparatus for 
simulating electromagnetic jamming signals. The simulator provides low 
power rf signals representative of a variety of jamming waveforms to a 
``victim'' receiver. It includes variables representative of 
propagation effects and means to replay stored data representing the 
resulting signal(s) for detailed analysis. The technology is applicable 
to resting electronic systems that must work in a jamming environment 
and training operators of such equipment
    Under authority of Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Technology 
Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502) and Section 207 of Title 35, 
United States Code, the Department of the Army as represented by the 
U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range--Electronic Proving Ground wishes 
to license the above mentioned United States Patent in a non-exclusive, 
exclusive, or partially exclusive manner to any party interested in 
manufacturing and selling devices covered by the above-mentioned 
patent.

Kenneth L. Denton,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3266 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 2.38% 7.85% 0.45% 2.1

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2012 and laterformula factors so that benefits grow by inflation rather than by increases in real wages

January 4, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE 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 E Com Ventures,  Inc. (the "Company") of
Form 10-K for the year ending January 29, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Michael W. Katz,
President and Chief Executive  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 the Report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.


                                            By: /s/ MICHAEL W. KATZ
                                                -----------------------
                                                Michael W. Katz
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                April 27, 2005
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  Re: GSAMP Trust 2007-H1 (the "Trust") Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
  Series 2007-H1, issued pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
  dated as of January 1, 2007 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"),
  among GS Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor, Litton Loan Servicing
  LP, as a Servicer, Avelo Mortgage, L.L.C., as a Servicer, U.S. Bank
  National Association, as a Custodian, Deutsche Bank National Trust
  Company, as a Custodian, LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee,
  and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Securities Administrator and Master
  Servicer, GSAMP Trust 2007-H1

  I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ("Annual Report"), and
    all reports on Form 10-D (collectively with this Annual Report, the
    "Reports") required to be filed in respect of period covered by this
    Annual Report, of the Trust;

  2.Based on my knowledge, the 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 Annual 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 Annual Report is included in the Reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the compliance statements required in this
    Annual Report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed
    in the Reports, each Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
    Pooling and Servicing 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 required to be
    included in this Annual 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 Annual Report, except as otherwise
    disclosed in this Annual Report.  Any material instances of
    non-compliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this
    Annual Report.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
    information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. as Master Servicer and Securities Administrator.

    Dated:   March 28, 2008


    /s/ Michelle Gill

    Michelle Gill
    Vice President
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7206

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMJADIA PORTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CR-94-37; CA-97-690-7)

Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004

Before WILKINSON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emjadia Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Emjadia Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking

reconsideration of the district court’s order granting in part and

denying in part Porter’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Porter has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Porter’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED