alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, *v.*John Bosch and John Bosch, Jr., Respondents.

Second Department,

December 30, 1908.

Public health — sale of adulterated milk.

One who sells milk containing more than eighty-eight per cent of water or fluids and less than twelve per cent of milk solids is liable for the penalty prescribed by the Agricultural Law.

It is no defense that such milk was actually given by a cow, nor is the intent of the defendant material.

Appeal by the plaintiff, The People of the State of Hew York, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the defendants, rendered on the 27th day of April, 1908, after a trial without a jury.

*William Adams Robinson,*for the appellant.

No appearance for the respondents.

Miller, J.:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of the defendants in an action brought to recover the penalty prescribed by the statute for selling adulterated milk. Section 20 of the Agricultural Law provides, *inter alia,*that the term “ adul*661terated milk ” means milk containing more than eighty-eight peleen turn of water or fluids or less than twelve per centum of milk solids. (Laws of 1893, chap. 338, as amd.)

It is undisputed that duplicate samples were taken as prescribed by section 12 of the Agricultural Law.* It is likewise undisputed that the samples so taken were both found, on analysis, to contain more than eighty-eight per centum of water and less than twelve per centum of milk solids. Ho evideneé was offered on behalf of the defendants; nevertheless, the Municipal Court gave judgment for the defendants.

Upon the undisputed evidence the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, as it was established that the milk was adulterated within the meaning of the statute, and it was conceded that it was offered and exposed for sale by the defendants. It may be that the Municipal Court justice decided the case on the supposition that the milk, as given by the cow, contained too much water, for a suggestion of that possibility is found in the cross-examination of the chemist called by the plaintiff, but that is not a defense. The intent of the defendants is not material.

The judgment is reversed.

Jenks, IIookek, Gaynob and Ríen, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered.

*

Amd. by Laws of 1898, chap. 557.— [Rep.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6219 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the definition of 

franchise fee, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2021 

Ms. ESHOO (for herself, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. COSTA, Mr. WELCH, Ms. PINGREE, Ms. MENG, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. NORTON, Mr. CASE, Mr. HUFFMAN, 

Mr. PAPPAS, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. BLUMENAUER, and Mr. PAYNE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the 

definition of franchise fee, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Community 

5 Television Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFYING THE DEFINITION OF FRANCHISE FEE. 

7 Section 622(g)(1) of the Communications Act of 

8 1934 (47 U.S.C. 542(g)(1)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6219 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘includes’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘means’’; and 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘other monetary’’ before ‘‘as4 sessment’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Certification Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

 

In connection with this Annual Report of New Era Marketing, Inc. (“New Era”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph MacKenzie, Chief Executive Officer of New Era, and I, Tiffany Miller, Principal Financial Officer of New Era, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results of operations of New Era as of and for the periods presented in the Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date: September 5, 2006

/s/ Joseph MacKenzie

Joseph MacKenzie

Chief Executive Officer 

 

Date: September 5, 2006

/s/ Joseph MacKenzie

Joseph MacKenzie

Principal Financial Officer
#### The Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. John F. Byrne.

1. *Evidence—Province of Jury Where it is*Conflicting.—Where the . evidence is conflicting upon the vital question of fact tried, it is the province of the jury to determine where the truth lies.

Assumpsit.—Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. George W. Patton, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1902.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed November 1, 1902.

Charles L. Capen, attorney for appellant; J. GL Drennan, of counsel.

A. E. DeMange, attorney for appellee.

Opinion per Curiam :

This case was before us at a former term and a statement thereof appears in 78 Ill. App. 204.

*97After it was remanded to the Circuit Court it was again tried by jury and resulted as before in a verdict and judgment in favor of the appellee, but the damages were assessed at $100 less.

The errors alleged upon this second appeal are many, and an elaborate brief and argument for the appellant is submitted in support thereof, but a careful examination of the record has convinced us that the rulings of the trial court on the admission and rejection of evidence and the instructions to the jury were all substantially correct.

The remarks of the trial judge complained of were not calculated to prejudice the appellant before the jury and hence do not constitute reversible error.

The .evidence now in the record is substantially as it was when the case was before us heretofore, and being conflicting upon the vital questions of fact tried, it was the province of the jury to determine where the truth was, and we are unable to find in the record any substantial reason appearing which indicates that they made a mistake, and therefore the judgment-will be affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6276 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3045 Sacramento Street in Placerville, California, as the ‘‘Deputy Sheriff 

Brian Ishmael Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2021 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. MCNERNEY, 

Mr. ISSA, Mrs. STEEL, Mr. COSTA, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. NUNES, Mr. 

GARCIA of California, Mr. OBERNOLTE, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. VALADAO, 

Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. LEVIN of California, Ms. PORTER, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. 

SHERMAN, Mr. LIEU, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mrs. KIM of California, Mr. 

MCCARTHY, Mr. PETERS, Mr. HARDER of California, Mr. SWALWELL, 

and Mr. PANETTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3045 Sacramento Street in Placerville, California, as the ‘‘Deputy Sheriff Brian Ishmael Post Office’’. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6276 IH

1 SECTION 1. DEPUTY SHERIFF BRIAN ISHMAEL POST OF2 FICE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 3045 Sacramento Street in 

5 Placerville, California, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Deputy Sheriff Brian Ishmael Post Office’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Deputy Sheriff Brian 

11 Ishmael Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### HI-ACRES, Inc., et al. v. PIERCE et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

June 4, 1954.

Rehearing Denied June 18, 1954.

Raymer F. Maguire, Jr., Maguire, Voor-his & Wells, Orlando, and Rodney Dur-rance, .Tallahassee, for appellants.

T. C. Cork, Clermont, for appellee.

MATHEWS,' Justice.

This was a death case within the jurisdiction of the Florida Industrial Commission. The deputy commissioner found that the evidence totally failed to- show that the decedent met his death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. There were many conflicts in the testimony- and different inferences could be drawn from the testimony.

In his order the deputy commissioner reviewed the testimony citing the case of Bowen v. Keen, 154 Fla. 161, 17 So.2d 706, as authority for a statement in the order that had the decedent been on a special mission at the request and direction of his employer and been killed while fulfilling this mission, the claim would have been compensable. He held that the evidence totally failed to show that the employee was on any such mission. He found that the decedent had concluded any mission he may have been on for his employer and that the claim was governed by the case of Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Moore, 143 Fla. 103, 196 So. 495. There is material difference between being on duty twenty-four hours a day and being subject to call twenty-four hours per day. Even though the employee may have been subject to call, after hours, to perform some special mission, he is not on duty unless it is shown that he had been called, after hours, to perform some special duty and had responded to such call.

On appeal for review the full Commission affirmed the.deputy commissioner and held that there- was “competent, substantial , evidence in the record to support the findings of fact heretofore made by the Deputy Commissioner”. • The deputy was affirmed upon the authority of United States Casualty Company v. Maryland Casualty Company, Fla., 55 So.2d 741.

On appeal to the Circuit Court ■ to review the order of the full Commission the Circuit Court reversed the full Commission and found: “There is no competent substantial evidence to sustain the findings of the Deputy Commissioner.”

 It is quite evident that there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to sustain the findings of the deputy commissioner and that the order of the full Commission, affirming the order of the deputy, was correct. The deputy commissioner was a trier of the facts and it was proper for him to reconcile conflicts in *50the testimony and to draw inferences therefrom. It appears that the Circuit Judge simply disagreed with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the deputy commissioner and, in so doing, applied the wrong rule of law applicable to such cases.

Reversed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6158 

To require a study on the challenges posed by the emergence of militia 

fleets in the South China Sea, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2021 

Mrs. LURIA (for herself and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a study on the challenges posed by the emergence 

of militia fleets in the South China Sea, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Countering the Peo5 ple’s Republic of China Maritime Militia Fleet Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6158 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STUDY ON THE EMER2 GENCE OF MILITIA FLEETS IN THE SOUTH 

3 CHINA SEA. 

4 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Defense shall carry 

5 out a study on the challenges posed by the emergence of 

6 militia fleets in the South China Sea, including— 

7 (1) a tactical threat assessment and assessment 

8 of United States Navy and Coast Guard capability; 

9 (2) options for countering militia fleets; and 

10 (3) an assessment of future capabilities needed 

11 to address those challenges. 

12 (b) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date 

13 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 

14 submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the House 

15 of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services 

16 of the Senate a report on the study conducted pursuant 

17 to subsection (a). 

18 (c) MILITIA FLEET.—In this section, the term ‘‘mili19 tia fleet’’ means the People’s Armed Forces Maritime Mili20 tia or other subset national militias of China. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I,  Jimmy  S.H.  Lee,  Chief Executive Officer of Mercer International Inc. (the
"Company"),  certify  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that:

  (1)  the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the Company for the quarterly
       period  ended  June  30,  2002  (the  "Report")  fully complies with the
       requirements of  Section  13(a) of the  Securities Exchange  Act of 1934
       (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));  and

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

Dated:  August  13,  2002


                                                 /s/  Jimmy  S.H.  Lee
                                                 -------------------------
                                                 Jimmy  S.H.  Lee
                                                 Chief  Executive  Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,048,546
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    136,419
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         434,898
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        92,248
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,712,111
<COMMON>                                        85,474
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      242,000
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            192,341
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 519,815
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           558,215
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  74,785
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     16,671
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   392
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 542,233
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,712,111
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      983,832
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             8,157
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     954,202
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     962,359
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         21,473
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                (247)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  21,226
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        12,255
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,971
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    8,971
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        7,255
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          38,299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    8,971
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    8,971
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31(b)

I, Thomas A. Nardi, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does 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 report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  February 9, 2004

  /s/  Thomas A. Nardi
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report of LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phillip B.
Douglas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 220, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 2, 2007



/s/ PHILLIP B. DOUGLASPhillip B. DouglasChief Financial Officer
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Richard F. Arguello, appellant.

175 N. W. 2d 614

Filed March 20, 1970.

No. 37478.

Nelson, Harding, Marchetti, Leonard & Tate and Richard H. Williams, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Ralph H. Gillan, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Carter, Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, and Newton, JJ.

Carter, J.

The defendant was charged with the crime of murder in two counts; in the first count with feloniously, purposely, intentionally, and maliciously, but without deliberation and premeditation, killing Joyce Frieda Arguello and, in the second count, with feloniously, purposely, intentionally, and maliciously, but without deliberation and premeditation, killing Shawn Marie Arguello. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to each count and was sentenced by the court to life imprisonment in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex on each count, the sentences to rim concurrently. The defendant has appealed.

The only assignment of error is that the sentences are excessive. The defendant having entered a plea of guilty, there is no evidence pertaining to the circumstances leading to and surrounding the commission of the crime. Before sentence was pronounced, the defendant was examined by one psychologist and two psychia*352trists and his mental condition ascertained. The medical reports were in the hands of the court and defendant’s court-appointed attorney. Before the. pleas of guilty to second degree murder were accepted, the court meticulously inquired into the voluntariness of the plea and if the effect of such a plea was understood by the defendant. Defendant entered the plea after conference with his attorney. Defendant answered all questions and stated that he understood his rights and the effect of a guilty plea. He also stated that his court-appointed attorney had gone over these matters with him at length and that he was completely satisfied with the services rendered by his attorney.

The record indicates that the victims of the murder were the wife and daughter of the defendant. No mitigating circumstances surrounding the crime were advanced by the defendant or his counsel. We find nothing in the record to support a finding that the sentence imposed was the result of an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. Under such circumstances this court will not interfere with the sentence imposed. The applicable rule is: Where a sentence has been imposed by the district court within statutory limits it will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of judicial discretion. State v. Whitaker, *ante*p. 57, 173 N. W. 2d 397.

We find no error in the record and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

White, C. J., not participating.
#### John E. SHULL and Anna Shull, his wife, Appellants, v. Henry T. OLECK and Verne E. Oleck, his wife, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division A.

Oct. 8, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.