alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Otis Patrick v. State

No. 25363.

October 3, 1951.

On Appellant Motion to Reinstate Appeal November 14, 1951.

*450Hon. Max M. Rogers, Judge Presiding.

*Bracewell & Wright,*by *Reginald Bracewell, Huntsville,*for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of assault with intent to murder and assessed eighteen months in the penitentiary.

The record in the case shows that an appeal bond was filed during the term of court, which recites that no recognizance was entered into during the term. Under the state of the record this court has no jurisdiction and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION TO REINSTATE APPEAL

DAVIDSON, Judge.

It now being made to appear that a recognizance was properly entered into in the trial court, appellant’s motion to reinstate the appeal is granted and the case will be disposed of upon its merits.

The conviction is for assault with intent to murder without malice.

The injured party was the estranged wife of the appellant; they were living separate and apart. According to the state’s testimony, appellant, without justification or excuse stabbed the injured party in the left cheek, the right breast, and the groin, inflicting serious bodily injuries as a result of which the injured party was hospitalized.

*451Appellant did not deny the stabbing. He did deny, however, an intent to kill, and sought a suspension of sentence.

Appellant complains of the action of the trial court in refusing to permit a witness to testify in support of appellant’s good reputation.

According to the bill of exception, the witness did not show himself qualified to testify relative thereto, because the opinion which the witness would have expressed was based upon his own personal beliefs and not upon the general reputation of the appellant as to the trait of character inquired about.

In Watson, v. State, No. 25,446, from Bexar County, decided November 7, 1951, Rehearing Denied January 9, 1952, (Page 585 of this volume) the rule was again followed which requires that a character witness must base his testimony upon the general reputation of the person involved and not upon the witness’s individual opinion.

We note that in passing sentence upon the appellant the trial court failed to apply the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law (Art. 775, C. C. P.) Tucker v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 586, 127 S. W. 2d 300; Swidan v. State (Page 29 of this volume), 238 S. W. 2d 537. Accordingly, the sentence is now reformed so as to fix appellant’s punishment at not less than one year nor more than eighteen months in the penitentiary, the minimum punishment for the instant offense being, under Art. 1160, P. C., one year.

No error appearing, and the sentence being reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
II

Calendar No. 238

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 657

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 14, 1995

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects

in the State of Arkansas.

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

HR 657 PCS

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

2 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

3 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal En4 ergy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the li5 censee for FERC Project No. 4204, 4660, and 4659 (and

6 after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with

7 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest require8 ments of such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures

9 under such section, to extend the time required for com10 mencement of construction for the project for up to a max11 imum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall

12 take effect for the project upon the expiration of the exten13 sion (issued by the Commission under such section 13)

14 of the period required for commencement of construction

15 of such project.

Passed the House of Representatives November 13,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 238

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 657

AN ACT

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power

electric projects in the State of Arkansas.Act applicable to the construction of three hydroNOVEMBER 14, 1995

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
# fn ORIGINAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR07-0011

IN THE MATTER OF CALLINGA RETIRED DISTRICTJUDGETO ACTIVE SERVICE JUN 0 

## 8 2022 Bowen Coreenwood Clert< of Supreme Court citat, p tkiinntana ORDER

The Honorable Deborah Kim Christopher, Judge of the District Court for the Twentieth Judicial District ofthe State ofMontana, has requested the assistance ofretired District Judge Karen Townsend to assumejurisdiction ofthe Department 2 Calendar in Sanders County and Lake County asneeded until July 15, 2022. Judge Townsend has retired under the provisions of the Montana Judges' Retirement System and, being subject to call for duty pursuant to § 19-5-103(a) and (b), MCA, has advised that she is agreeable to assisting the Twentieth Judicial District Court with the above-listed matters. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1.TheHonorable Karen Townsend,retired DistrictJudge, ishereby called to active service in the District Court ofthe Twentieth Judicial District ofthe State ofMontana, to assumejurisdiction ofand preside over the Department 2 Calendar in SandersCounty and Lake County as needed through July 15, 2022, and is hereby authorized to proceed with any and all necessary hearings, opinions, and orders, including final resolution of said matters. 2. For all active service, Judge Townsend shall be paid the salary compensation to which she is entitled by § 19-5-103(2)(b), MCA, and actual expenses, if any, shall be reimbursed. 3. A copy ofthis Order shall be filed with the Clerks ofCourt ofSanders County and Lake County, with the request that this Order be publicly posted for all counsel of record in all cases scheduled for Department 2 on the above-listed dates. 06/08/2022

Case Number: PR 07-00114. A copy of this Order shall also be furnished to the Honorable Deborah Kim

Christopher, the Honorable Karen Townsend, and to Cathy Pennie, Office ofthe Supreme CourtAdministrator. This Order is entered by the ChiefJustice pursuant to Article VII, Section 6(3) of the 1972 Montana Constitution, and statutes enacted in conformity therewith and in implementation thereof DATED this day ofJune, 2022.

ChiefJustice

2
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 483 Received in Senate (RDS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H.R. 483

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                April 7 (legislative day, April 5), 1995

                     Received; read the first time

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit medicare 
  select policies to be offered in all States, 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. PERMITTING MEDICARE SELECT POLICIES TO BE OFFERED IN ALL 
              STATES FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD.

    Section 4358(c) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, 
as amended by section 172(a) of the Social Security Act Amendments of 
1994, is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this section 
shall only apply--
            ``(A) in 15 States (as determined by the Secretary of 
        Health and Human Services) and such other States as elect such 
        amendments to apply to them, and
            ``(B) subject to paragraph (2), during the 8\1/2\ year 
        period beginning with 1992.
    ``(2)(A) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall conduct a 
study that compares the health care costs, quality of care, and access 
to services under medicare select policies with that under other 
medicare supplemental policies. The study shall be based on surveys of 
appropriate age-adjusted sample populations. The study shall be 
completed by December 31, 1998.
    ``(B) The Secretary shall determine during 1999 whether the 
amendments made by this section shall remain in effect beyond the 8\1/
2\ year period described in paragraph (1)(B). Such amendments shall 
remain in effect beyond such period unless the Secretary determines 
(based on the results of the study under subparagraph (A)) that--
            ``(i) such amendments have not resulted in savings of 
        premiums costs to those enrolled in medicare select policies 
        (in comparison to their enrollment in medicare supplemental 
        policies that are not medicare select policies and that provide 
        comparable coverage),
            ``(ii) there have been significant additional expenditures 
        under the medicare program as a result of such amendments, or
            ``(iii) access to and quality of care has been 
        significantly diminished as a result of such amendments.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 6, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-114987, Registration Statement No. 333-55836 and
Registration Statement No. 333-62585 of The Pantry, Inc. on Forms S-8, and Registration Statement No. 333-116972 of The Pantry, Inc. on Form S-3, as amended, of our reports dated December 13, 2005 relating to the financial statements
and financial statement schedule of The Pantry, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph related to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, Accounting for Asset
Retirement Obligations, in fiscal 2003) and managements report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (which expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of The Pantry, Inc.s internal control over
financial reporting because of two material weaknesses), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Pantry, Inc. for the year ended September 29, 2005.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP



|                       
|-----------------------
|Raleigh, North Carolina
|December 13, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

    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 Quarterly Report of GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
        Company.


Date:  May 5, 2005
                                       /s/
                                       Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.


                                       1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Joseph, Appellant.

[676 NYS2d 880]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered December 5, 1996, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*530Since the defendant failed to object to the trial court’s justification charge, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gurganious,*214 AD2d 681). In any event, the court’s charge, which followed the pattern jury instructions almost verbatim *(see,*1 CJI[NY] 35.15 [2] [a], at 876-879), viewed in its entirety, adequately conveyed the appropriate standard to the jury *(see, People v Wesley,*76 NY2d 555, 561; *People v Goetz,*68 NY2d 96; *People v Martinez, 243*AD2d 732).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
H. R. 614

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the fourth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Minnesota the

New London National Fish Hatchery production facility.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NEW LONDON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY PRODUCTION FACILITY.

(a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding any other

provision of law and within 180 days after the date of the enactment

of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State

of Minnesota without reimbursement all right, title, and interest

of the United States in and to the property comprising the New

London National Fish Hatchery production facility, located outside

of downtown New London, Minnesota, including—

(1) all easements and water rights relating to that property,

and

(2) all land, improvements, and related personal property

comprising that production facility.

(b) USE OF PROPERTY.—All property and interests conveyed

under this section shall be used by the Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources for the Minnesota fishery resources management program.

(c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The property conveyed

to the State of Minnesota pursuant to this section shall be used

by the State for purposes of fishery resources management, and

if it is used for any other purpose all right, title, and interest

in and to all property conveyed pursuant to this section shall

revert to the United States. The State of Minnesota shall ensure
H. R. —6142

that the property reverting to the United States is in substantially

the same or better condition as at the time of transfer.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.01

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated January 19, 2001 included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File nos.
333-40456, 333-31484, 333-78087, 333-51945, 333-40645 and 333-38363) and
(No. 333-36170) on Form S-3 of Concord Communications, Inc.

                                                             Arthur Andersen LLP

                                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 21, 2001
#### Otis W. Barnes v. State.

No. 25002.

November 22, 1950.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Upon a complaint and information charging him with driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway in Bexar County, Texas, while intoxicated, appellant was found guilty, and a *257jury being waived, his punishment was assessed by the court at at fine of $50.00.

There are no bills of exception, and appellant has filed no brief.

The evidence shows that appellant drove an automobile in a southerly direction on Main Avenue while intoxicated. He became involved in a collision with a second car at the corner of Main Avenue and Rodriguez Street.

It is shown that officers of the city of San Antonio investigated the accident, and that the offense was committed in Bexar County, Texas. The point is made that no witness testified directly that the scene of the collision was in the city of San Antonio.

We think that the evidence showing the offense to have been committed on “Main Avenue” at its intersection with “Rodriguez Street” is sufficient to sustain the allegation that the car was driven by appellant on a public highway.

The term street or avenue, as ordinarily used, means a public thoroughfare and highway. All streets or avenues open for the passage of vehicles are highways, though all highways are not streets or avenues. See Lamkin v. State, 136 Tex. Cr. R. 99, 123 S.W. 2d 662; Parsons v. State, 149 Tex. Cr. R. 395, 194 S.W. 2d 560.

No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
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 I, Stephen P.
Jackson, Jr., certify that this annual report on Form 10-K of Remington Arms
Company, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in this
annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant. Date: April
  2, 2007

/s/ Stephen P. Jackson, Jr.Stephen P. Jackson, Jr.Senior Vice
President, Chief Financial
  Officer,Treasurer and Corporate
  Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                     0000075439
<NAME>                     BELL NATIONAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1
<CURRENCY>                                       USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                     1,256,000  
<SECURITIES>                                       0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0  
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0  
<INVENTORY>                                        0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,263,000  
<PP&E>                                             0  
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1,263,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        923,000  
<BONDS>                                            0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     15,849,000  
<PREFERRED>                                        0  
<COMMON>                                           0  
<OTHER-SE>                               (15,509,000) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1,263,000  
<SALES>                                            0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0  
<CGS>                                              0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 88,000  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              40,000  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (48,000) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (48,000) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0  
<CHANGES>                                          0  
<NET-INCOME>                                 (48,000) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01) 
        

</TABLE>
#### Reuben W. Wright and Another, Respondents, v. Daniel F. Toomey and Another, Appellants.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAOP22-0125BELGRADESHOOLDISTRICTNO.1,Petitioners,v.MONTANAFOURTHJUDICIALDISTRICTCOURT,TheHonorableJohnW.Larson,presiding,Respondent.FILEDMAR172022BovvenGreenwoodClerkofSupremeCourtStateofMontanaORDERBypetitionfiledMarch11,2022,BelgradeSchoolDistrictNo.1(SchoolDistrict)petitionsthisCourtforexerciseofsupervisorycontrolintheunderlyingmatterofWesternMontanaMentalHealthCenterv.BelgradeSchoolDistrict,CauseNo.DV-20-682,MontanaFourthJudicialDistrictCourt,MissoulaCounty,forextraordinaryreviewoftheDistrictCourt'sDecember2,2020denialoftheSchoolDistrict'sMotiontoDismissandFebruary28,2022AmendedOrderonsummaryjudgment.SeeFebruary28,2022,ArnendedOrderRegardingPlaintiff'sMotionforPartialSummaryJudgment;Plaintiff'sMotionforSurnmaryJudgmentonCounterclaim;andDefendant'sMotionforSummaryJudgment;December2,2020OrderDenyingDefendant'sMotiontoDismiss.TheSchoolDistrictassertsthatthecourterroneouslyfailedtogranttheSchoolDistrict'sMotiontoDismissandfailedtoaddressdisputedissuesoflawonsummaryjudgment,insteadimproperlyreservingthemfordeterminationbyajuryattrial.SchoolDistrictassertsthattheunderlyingplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactstosupportitsclaimsofbreachofcontractorbreachofimpliedcovenantofgoodfaithandfairdealingandthattherearenodisputedmaterialfacts,arguingthattheonlycontestedmattersarepurelylegalissuesrelatedtotheinterpretationoftheunderlyingcontract.TheSchoolDistrictassertsthatexerciseofsupervisorycontroliswarrantedpursuanttoM.R.App.P.14(3)(a)andStokesv.Mont.ThirteenthJudicialDist.Ct.,201103/17/2022Case Number: OP 22-0125MT182,¶¶6-8,361Mont.279,259P.3d754,ontheassertedgroundthattheDistrictCourtisproceedingundermanifestrnistakesoflawforwhichordinaryappealisinadequateandwillresultingrossinjustice.Onthosesamegrounds,theSchoolDistrict,inaMarch15,2022MotionforStayoftheUnderlyingProceeding,asksthisCourttostayfurtherDistrictCourtproceedingspendingdispositionofitspetitionpursuanttoM.R.App.P.14(7)(c).UponreviewofthePetition,Motion,andsupportingdocuments,wefindthatthepetitionerhasshownsufficientcausetorequireasummaryresponsepursuanttoM.R.App.P.14(7).Therefore,pursuanttoM.R.App.P.14(7),ITISORDEREDthattheDistrictCourtandplaintiff/respondentWesternMontanaMentalHealthCenterareherebygrantedfifteen(15)daysfromthedateofthisOrdertorespectivelyfileasumrnaryresponse,ifany,tothepetition.TheClerkofthisCourtisherebydirectedtoprovideimmediatenoticeofthisOrdertotheMontanaFourthJudicialDistrictCourtintheunderlyingmatterofWesternMontanaMentalHealthCenterv.BelgradeSchoolDistrict,CauseNo.DV-20-682;theHonorableJohnW.Larson,presiding;andallcounselofrecord.DATEDthis/7"kdayofMarch,2022./94xi44,Justice2