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

No. 25175.

February 28, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1951.

*Boling, Smith & Allen,*by *S. P. Boling,*Lubbock, for appelant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the sale of beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $400.

The city marshal of the city of Lorenzo apprehended appellant in front of his (appellant’s) house in said city after he handed a Mr. Bird a paper sack containing three cans of beer. The marshal testified that immediately after he took the beer from Bird he turned to appellant and demanded the money *615which he had seen Bird give him upon receiving the beer. Whereupon, the appellant handed the officer two dollars.

Appellant and Bird testified that the beer belonged to Bird and that appellant had been cooling it for him. Appellant denied that Bird had given him the money, and stated that he merely gave the officer what money he had in his pocket in response to the demand.

Appellant comes to this court with five bills of exception, each of which complain of the refusal of the trial court to give an identical special charge containing nine numbered paragraphs. Appellant prefaces each bill of exception with a statement as to the purpose of the bill. Nowhere in the transcript do we find any objections or exceptions to the court’s charge. In a misdemeanor case it is incumbent upon appellant to come before this court with both objections and exceptions to the charge and a requested charge or charges. Cases cited under Notes 105 and 110 of Art. 666, C. C. P.

It will be noted that appellant’s affirmative defense was submitted by the court when he granted appellant’s specially requested charge No. 2.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Objections addressed to the court’s charge which were not in the record when the original opinion herein was delivered are now before us.

The instrument filed does not, however, show that such objections were called to the court’s attention or that the court ruled upon the objections to the charge.

In the absence of a showing in the record over the signature of the judge that the objections were timely presented and overruled and that appellant excepted to such ruling, we are unable to agree that appellant “excepted” to the charge given in addition to requesting special charges.

Being a misdemeanor case, it was incumbent upon appellant to reserve timely exceptions to the charge given as well as to *616request the giving of a properly prepared charge on the subject. See Crispi v. State, 90 Tex. Cr. R. 621, 237 S.W. 263; 4 Tex. Jur. 75, Sec. 47.

The case having been properly disposed of on original submission, appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the court.
**Exhibit 99.1**

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF PARADYNE NETWORKS, INC.****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 QuarterlyReport of Paradyne Networks, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sean E. Belanger, Chairman,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         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.

|                                                                                                                       |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ SEAN E. BELANGER                                                                                                  |   |   |        |
| **Sean E. Belanger****Chairman , President and Chief Executive Officer****November 13, 2002**     |
#### INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS OF CALIFORNIA INC., a California nonprofit, religious corporation; Emil *975Beca, one of its individual members; Committee for Human Rights in Iran, a California public benefit corporation; Reza Nabati, one of its individual members, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a California Municipal Corporation; Stephen Yee, Airport Manager; Gilbert A. Sandoval, Chief of Airport Police, Defendants—Appellants.

No. 01-56579.

D.C. No. CY-97-03616-CBM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.

Decided March 21, 2003.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

ORDER *

Appellees are religious and charitable groups who solicit funds at Los Angeles International Airport. The district court enjoined appellant City of Los Angeles from enforcing an ordinance that would have restricted appellees’ activities, concluding that it violated the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution. Cal. Const, art. I, § 2(a).

This case involves California plaintiffs and California defendants who disagree primarily over whether a California municipal ordinance violates the California Constitution. While we express no view whether appellees’ federal claims were sufficient to support the district court’s invocation of the principle of federal constitutional avoidance, we think it fair to say that the case raises “state law questions that present significant issues ... with important public policy ramifications.” *Kremen v. Cohen,*314 F.3d 1127,1129 (9th Cir.2003). Whether the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution should be interpreted more expansively than the federal First Amendment in a context implicating substantial state police power interests is a question that would benefit from consideration by the state judiciary. Accordingly, we intend to certify this case to the California Supreme Court. *See*Cal. Rules of Court 29.8.

The district court entered judgment on August 2, 2001. Appellants ask us to take judicial notice of news articles describing the transformative impact of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on airport administration. Appellees note that our review of a district court’s decision is generally limited to the record. *See Barilla v. Ervin,*886 F.2d 1514, 1521 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1989). But no assistance from news articles is necessary to appreciate the obvious fact that airport security needs are not what they used to be. *See*Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(1), (f). In our view, the California Supreme Court would substantially benefit from a record that reflects current reality.

We therefore REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to move to supplement the record with admissible evidence that would aid the California Supreme Court in its *976deliberations. The Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as moot. This panel retains jurisdiction.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 35
                                  ----------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWHEQ, INC.
                 CWHEQ HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2006-S1
          HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-S1


         The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.17 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                     Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
**Exhibit
      23.1**


**CONSENT OF
        INDEPENDENT
        REGISTERED
        PUBLIC
        ACCOUNTINGFIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 333-74197, 333-86728 and 333-124960) (pertaining to the 1995 Amended
      and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the 1998 Non-Executive
      Employee Stock Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan and the 2004 Stock
      Option and Restricted Stock Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-95361,
      333-33986, 333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346, 333-63514, 333-99559,
      333-99673, 333-106420, 333-110729, 333-112611, 333-124959, 333-124961,
      333-128497 and 333-129713) of our report dated March 30, 2006, except for the
      final paragraph, as to which the date is June 15, 2006 and for Note 13.h.,
      as to which the date is July 24, 2006, with respect to the consolidated
      financial statements and schedule of Arotech Corporation, and of our report
      dated June 15, 2006 with respect to Arotech management’s assessment of the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
      effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Arotech, included
      in this Form 10-K/A.




/s/
                Kost, Forer,
                Gabbay & KasiererKost,
                Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
              A
                Member of Ernst & Young
                Global




Tel-Aviv,
      Israel


July
      24,
      2006
#### CLACK v. STATE.

5 Div. 962.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 7, 1935.

A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, Judge.

The indictment in the case is in all things regular and properly charges the offense of which the defendant was convicted.

*266The bill of exceptions fails to disclose any exceptions of merit.

Refused charge 1, being the only charge refused to defendant, is elliptical, and for that reason was properly refused.

We And no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 10.17
 Summary of Compensation Payable
to Nonemployee Directors
 February 2006
  Cash Compensation
  
    
    An annual retainer of $28,000;
    
    Additional annual retainer, beginning May 2006, of $7,500 for each
of the Lead Nonemployee Director and the Chair of the Audit and
Finance Committee and $5,000 for each of the Chairs of the
Management Development and Compensation Committee and the
Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee;
    
    Meeting attendance fees of $1,250 per Board meeting and $1,000 per
meeting of Board Committees; and
    
    Teleconference meeting attendance fees, beginning May 2006, of
$500 per meeting of the Audit and Finance Committee for review of
quarterly earnings releases.
  Equity Compensation




---



#####
Exhibit 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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  Arotech  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the year  ended  December  31,  2003 filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I,  Robert S.  Ehrlich,
Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements
of  Section  13(a) or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  and the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                               By: /s/ Robert S. Ehrlich
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                  Robert S. Ehrlich, Chairman, President and CEO
                                  (Chief Executive Officer)

Date:  March 30, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,014,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,423,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (350,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 16,554,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,597,000
<PP&E>                                     116,754,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (38,104,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             145,632,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,098,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,262,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  69,612,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               145,632,000
<SALES>                                     52,380,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,380,000
<CGS>                                       37,465,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,588,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,036,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,629,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,089,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,502,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,502,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29
        

</TABLE>
#### Dennis SOBIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph BROOKS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and Curtis Hise; Robert Alexander; Prison Staff Members, Known and Unknown, Respondents.

No. 02-7656.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Dennis Sobin, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by -unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Sobin appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Sobin v. Brooks,*No. CA-01-54-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 4, 2002, entered Sept. 5, 2002; filed Oct. 15, 2002, entered Oct. 16, 2002). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1946]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than February 15, 2008.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (W. Arthur Tribble, Vice 
President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. William Glover Loftin, to acquire voting shares of Capital 
Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of 
Commercial Capital Bank, all of Delhi, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 30, 
2008.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E8-1946 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-14825-A, F-14825-A2; AK-965-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving the surface and subsurface estates in 
certain lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act will be issued to Alakanuk Native Corporation. The lands 
are in the vicinity of Alakanuk, Alaska, and are located in:

Seward Meridian, Alaska

T. 29 N., R. 80 W.,
    Secs. 1 to 4, inclusive;
    Secs. 8, 11, 18, and 19.

    Containing approximately 4,155 acres.
T. 30 N., R. 80 W.,
    Secs. 7 to 10, inclusive;
    Secs. 13 to 17, inclusive;
    Secs. 19 to 25, inclusive;
    Sec. 35.

    Containing approximately 8,679 acres.
T. 29 N., R. 81 W.,
    Secs. 25 and 36.

    Containing approximately 1,199 acres.
T. 28 N., R. 82 W.,
    Secs. 1 to 4, inclusive;
    Secs. 9, 16, and 21.

    Containing approximately 3,967 acres.
    Aggregating approximately 18,000 acres.

    The subsurface estate in these lands will be conveyed to Calista 
Corporation when the surface estate is conveyed to Alakanuk Native 
Corporation.
    Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Tundra Drums.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until September 19, 2008 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by phone 
at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#45242e6b2729286b262a2b33203c242b262005242e6b2729286b222a33"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f8f2b7fbf5f4b7faf6f7effce0f8f7fafcd9f8f2b7fbf5f4b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>. Persons 
who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Robert Childers,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication II.
[FR Doc. E8-19243 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT INGRAM MICRO AND ESIS NORTHEAST WC CLAIMS, Petitioners

v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (SANDRA HEIM), Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 431 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 10th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
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 Annual Report of Atlas America Public #15-2006 (B) L.P. (the
"Partnership") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the MGP, 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
      Partnership.
 
 By:
              /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
              Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
              Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
              March
      31, 2008
#### De Raismes Hose Company No. 1, Appellant, v. The City of New York, Respondent.

—Order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6092 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6092

To revise the standards for eligibility for community development block 
        grant disaster recovery grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 30, 2021

Mr. Rice of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Clyburn) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revise the standards for eligibility for community development block 
        grant disaster recovery grants, 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISASTER RECOVERY GRANTS.

    In making any determination of whether any ZIP Code is a most 
impacted and distressed area for purposes of eligibility for a formula 
allocation with amounts made available under title I of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) for disaster 
recovery, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may not 
establish a minimum threshold dollar amount relating to serious unmet 
housing need for an area to be considered as having suffered sufficient 
concentrated damages, but shall consider any ZIP Code for which the 
median household income is less than 75 percent of the national median 
household income as having suffered such sufficient concentrated 
damages.
                                 <all>
```