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

No. 25264.

April 4, 1951.

*589
      *J. M. Parker,*Gorman, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense defined in Art. 514, P.C., in keeping and being concerned in keeping an assignation house, and the jury assessed a fine of $200 and a jail term of 20 days.

The evidence from the standpoint of the state showed that appellant owned the house and resided there; that the reputation of the house was that of being a house where men and women met by mutual appointment for the purpose of sexual intercourse; that several men and boys engaged in acts of sexual intercourse with appellant at such house on several occasions; that a single man stayed at said house and paid appellant $5 per day for his room and meals, but was required to absent himself when another man who was falsely represented by appellant to be her husband came there.

Such facts are sufficient to sustain the conviction. See Crowell v. State, 147 Tex. Cr. R. 299, 180 S.W. 2d 343.

Complaint is made regarding the verdict, it being contended that the verdict was signed and: delivered to the trial judge finding the defendant guilty but omitting to fix the punishment; that thereafter, the trial court having déclined to receive such verdict, the jury added to their verdict below the signatures of the jurors, the punishment of “a fine of $200 and 20 days in jail.”

It is unnecessary for us to pass upon this complaint for the reason that under the court’s charge and Art. 514, P.C., the •punishment is definitely fixed in the event of conviction at a *590fine of $200 and a jail term of 20 days. It was therefore not an issue for the jury, and the jury had no discretion in regard thereto after finding appellant guilty as charged. See Art. 693, C.C.P.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### RUSSELL v. PIERCE PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al.

No. 3940.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

Dec. 9, 1931.

James W. Jones, Jr., of Natchitoches, for appellant.

Breazeale & Hughes, of Natchitoches, for appellees.

CULPEPPER, J.

This case is before the court with an incomplete record, in that the testimony has not been brought up. The absence of the testimony is apparently due to the fault of the appellant in failing to pay the court stenographer his fee for taking and transcribing same in the lower court.

Judgment was rendered on July 22, 1930, and signed July 23, rejecting plaintiff’s demands. Plaintiff took an order of appeal made returnable to this court on September 8, 1930. On September 9, 1930, the transcript of the record was filed in this court, with certificate attached, signed by A. H. O’Quinn, deputy clerk, setting forth that the record contained “a full true and complete transcript of all papers filed, and testimony adduced on the trial of the ease.” It later developed that the certificate was erroneously written.

The case was fixed for hearing in this court for November 16, 1931. On that day appel-lee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the record was incomplete, in that it did not contain a transcript of the testimony. Simultaneously with the filing of the motion, there was also filed and attached to the record a second certificate signed by Mr. A. H. O’Quinn, the deputy clerk who signed the original certificate, setting forth that he was the court reporter who took the testimony in the trial of the case, and “that I made demand on the counsel for the plaintiff, appellee” (should be ‘appellant’) “to pay the stenographic fee, and same has never been paid, and I forwarded the transcript of appeal to the Honorable Court of Appeal without the transcribed evidence being a part of said record.”

Plaintiff-appellant has made no appearance by counsel -to argue the case or to file brief. He has filed no assignment of errors or statement of facts upon which this court can base an opinion. Nor has he asked for further time in which to have the testimony brought up.

Construing the last certificate of the deputy clerk as a correction of the first, the two together show an incomplete record, which fact is due to the fault of appellant. Appellant has had more than a year in which to pay for taking and transcribing the testimony.

Due to the fact that there is no testimony on which to base am opinion, and the further fact that appellant has made no appearance by brief or by counsel, or otherwise, we take it that the appeal has been abandoned, and same is therefore dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 629 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 629

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 18, 1995

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 
 operation of certain visitor facilities associated with, but outside 
    the boundaries of, Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of 
                               Colorado.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``The Fall River Visitor Center Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS OUTSIDE AUTHORIZED BOUNDARY OF ROCKY 
              MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK.

    (a) Visitor Center.--The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 
collect and expend donated funds and expend appropriated funds for the 
operation and maintenance of a visitor center to be constructed for 
visitors to and administration of Rocky Mountain National Park with 
private funds on the privately owned lands described in subsection (b).
    (b) Description of Parcels of Land.--The lands referred to in 
subsection (a) are described as follows:
            Being land owned by H.W. Stewart, Inc., and more 
        particularly described as follows:
                    Beginning at the southwest corner of the north one-
                half of section 16, township 5 north, range 73 west of 
                the sixth principal meridian, Colorado; thence south 
                eighty-seven degrees six minutes east, eight hundred 
                and fifty-four feet; thence north two degrees west, 
                three hundred and forty-six and one-tenth feet to the 
                south boundary of the right-of-way of U.S. Highway 34; 
                thence northwesterly along said south boundary nine 
                hundred and sixty feet to the west line of said section 
                16; thence south along the west line of said section 16 
                to the point of beginning.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 17, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Report) of Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. (the Company) for the nine months ended September 30, 2003, I, Gary N. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge 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.



/s/ Gary N. ThompsonGary N. ThompsonTitle: Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerAcceptance Insurance Companies Inc.




Date: November 11, 2003



35
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1923]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF08-375-000]


Town of Tarboro, NC at Spongex LLC, Tarboro, NC; Notice of Filing

January 28, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 17, 2008, the Town of Tarboro, NC filed 
with the Commission a notice of self-certification of a facility as a 
qualifying cogeneration facility.
    This qualifying cogeneration facility consists of a 2000 kW 
packaged diesel engine generator set operating on <greek-i>2 fuel oil. 
The package is set on a concrete pad. The system includes all necessary 
switchgear and controls. The electricity is generated at 480 V, 3 
phase, 60 Hz. The facility is located at Anaconda Road in Tarboro, NC.
    This qualifying facility interconnects with the Town of Tarboro's 
electric distribution system. The facility will provide standby power 
and occasionally supplementary power to Spongex LLC.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding 
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification 
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the 
facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any 
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so 
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d)(iii).
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#94d2d1c6d7dbfaf8fdfaf1c7e1e4e4fbe6e0d4f2f1e6f7baf3fbe2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6b0b3a4b5b9989a9f9893a5838686998482b690938495d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1923 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Arthur Green v. State.

No. 25278.

April 25, 1951.

Hon. Louis B. Reed, Judge Presiding.

*N. C. Outlaw*and *Erwin G. Ernest,*by *N. C. Outlaw*of counsel, Post, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

*23No contention is made that the evidence does not support the verdict.

On motion for new trial appellant established that the jury, in going from the courthouse to the cafe and returning therefrom, on two occasions rode in three separate automobiles, that these automobiles were parked at different places and that the jurors walked from such parking places unattended by an officer in a busy section of town, varying distances to the cafe, and returned therefrom to their cars without the supervision of an officer.

This having been shown, it became incumbent upon the state to show that such jurors did not mingle or converse with anyone not a member of the jury. This burden the state failed to discharge. The officer attending the jury was not called, and only four members of the jury testified on the hearing.

Without a complete showing of noninterference with the jury by anyone outside its number, we cannot say that a separation — as the same is denounced by statute — did not occur. See Arts 623 and 668, C.C.P.

For the errors pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 12342 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:16

- cr - 80018

- RLR

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LAVANCE PALMER , a.k

. a. Rasta, a.k.a. Sean Grant, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (February 13, 2017) Before TJOFLAT , WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-12342 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 1 of 22 Robert E. Adler , appointed counsel for Lavance Palmer in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Palmer ’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 16-12342 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC. AS OF SEPTEMBER
30, 1996 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND CASH
FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          62,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,382,038
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,982
<PP&E>                                       2,575,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                 633,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,468,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          915,739
<BONDS>                                         12,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       350,187
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,189,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,468,349
<SALES>                                      1,210,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,255,428
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,709,411
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (470,790)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (471,790)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (471,790)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF PARADIGM MEDICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       3,040,152
<SECURITIES>                                   486,039
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    369,045
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,969,051
<PP&E>                                         150,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (26,975)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,192,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,213 
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,976,076
<COMMON>                                     6,189,423
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,149,572)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,192,595
<SALES>                                        252,134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               294,993
<CGS>                                          180,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,328,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               179,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (56,829)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,449,019)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,449,019)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,449,019)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.61)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of Mondo Acquisition III, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas A. Rose, President 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.   Date: January 5, 2010By:/s/ Thomas A. RoseThomas A. Rose
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 47952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18899]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health 
Promotion

    In accordance with section 10(a) (2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention announces the following meeting.

    Name: Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health.
    Time and Date: 9 a.m.--4:30 p.m., September 16, 2008.
    Place: Hilton Washington Embassy Row, Ambassador Room, 2015 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Telephone: 202-939-
4124.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. 
Those who wish to attend are encouraged to register with the contact 
person listed below. If you will require a sign language 
interpretator, or have other special needs, please notify the 
contact person by 4:30 E.S.T. on September 9, 2008.
    Purpose: The Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health advises 
the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
Assistant Secretary for Health in the (a) coordination of all 
research and education programs and other activities within the 
Department and with other federal, state, local and private agencies 
and (b) establishment and maintenance of liaison with appropriate 
private entities, federal agencies, and state and local public 
health agencies with respect to smoking and health activities.
    Matters to be Discussed: The agenda will focus on 
``NicotineAddiction.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Substantive program 
information as well as summaries of the meeting and roster of 
committee members may be obtained from the internet at http: //
www.cdc.gov/tobacco in mid-December or from Ms. Monica L. Swann, 
Management and Program Analyst, Office on Smoking and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, M/S 
K50, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone: 770-488-5278.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: August 11, 2008.
Lorenzo J. Falgiano,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Service Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E8-18899 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
195 La. 206

#### STATE v. WEISS et al.

No. 35643.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1940.

Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Snellings and Murray Hudson, all of Monroe, for relator.

*70Lessley P. Gardiner, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Truett L. Scarborough, Dist. Atty., of Ruston, for the State.

O’NIELL, Chief Justice.

This is one of the cases referred to in the opinion rendered today in the case of State v. -Hart et al., 196 So. 62, of this court. The facts and issues in this case are stated in the opinion rendered in that case. The only additional issue raised by the rela-tors in this case is in their contention that the evidence shows that they had nothing whatever to do with the transactions described in the indictment as constituting a crime, alleged to have been committed in Lincoln parish. The question whether the relators in this case participated in the alleged crime belongs to the question of guilt or innocence, and not to the question of jurisdiction, which is the only question tendered by the defendants’ pleas to the jurisdiction.

For the reasons given in the opinion rendered today in the proceeding entitled State v. Hart et al., 196 So. 62, the relief prayed for by the relators in this case is denied, and the judgment of the district court, overruling the relators’ plea to the jurisdiction of the court, is affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., concurs in the decree.