alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
210 La. 573

#### STATE v. BRAY et al.

No. 38181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 14, 1946.

Chandler C. Luzenberg, of New Orleans, for appellants.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Cul-ligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Herve Raci-vitch, Dist. Atty. and Guy Johnson, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

Willie Bray and Junius Charles were indicted for murder and convicted of an attempt to commit murder. Their motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled and they were sentenced to imprisonment in the State penitentiary. This appeal followed.

The important question presented for decision is whether a verdict for attempted murder is responsive to an indictment for murder.

Notwithstanding that the victim of the crime in this case died as a result of a number of stab wounds which were inflicted upon him by defendants, the trial judge ruled that the verdict of the jury finding the defendants guilty of an attempt to commit murder was a legal verdict.

Article 27 of the Criminal Code, the General Attempt Statute, and the case of State v. Harper, 205 La. 228, 17 So.2d 260, were relied on by the judge to sustain his ruling. But in the recent case of State v. Love, 26 So.2d 156, this Court had occasion to consider the Code article and the decision in the case of State v. Harper. In the Love case the defendant was charged with murder and convicted of attempted manslaughter. This Court held that the verdict was not responsive to the indictment. In the Love case, we showed that the case of State v. Harper, which was also relied on by the State, was not authority on the question before the court, because there the defendant was not indicted for murder but was indicted for attempt to murder and his conviction for attempted manslaughter was re*338sponsive to the charge. In the Love case, we also showed that, construing together Articles 27 and 29 of the Criminal Code and Articles 386, 405 and 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, -on an indictment for murder the ¡only verdicts of lesser crimes permitted are verdicts of manslaughter and negligent homicide.

'Under the decision in the Love case, which is de'cisive of the question involved in this case, the convictions and' sentences appealed from must be set aside. And since the effect of - the verdict was to acquit defendants of the charge of murder, they must be discharged.

For the reasons assigned, the convictions and sentences, of the defendants are annulled and the defendants are ordered discharged.

O’NIELL, C. J., concurs in the decree on the ground that the charge of the Judge was not appropriate here without explanation.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           EXHIBIT 11-1

                                     PENNSYLVANIA ENTERPRISES, INC.

                         Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings for the
                     Three and Nine Month Periods Ended September 30, 1996 and 1995


                                         Three Months Ended           Nine Months Ended     
                                         1996          1995           1996          1995    
<S>                                  <C>           <C>            <C>           <C>
Income (loss) before subsidiary's
  preferred stock dividends          $ (3,694,000) $ (3,469,000)  $  3,822,000  $ (2,254,000)

Subsidiary's preferred stock
  dividends                               363,000       690,000      1,383,000     2,073,000

Net income (loss)                    $ (4,057,000) $ (4,159,000)  $  2,439,000  $ (4,327,000)

Earnings (loss) per share of
  common stock*                      $       (.86) $       (.72)  $        .20  $       (.76)

Computations of additional common
  shares outstanding

  Average shares of common stock        4,810,518     5,754,607      5,214,001     5,715,294

  Incremental common shares
    applicable to options, based on
    the daily average market price          8,584         3,418          7,963         1,194

  Average common shares as adjusted     4,819,102     5,758,025      5,221,964     5,716,488

  Average shares of common stock        4,810,518     5,754,607      5,214,001     5,715,294

  Incremental common shares
    applicable to options, based on
    the more dilutive of daily
    average or ending market price          9,574         5,963          8,717         3,121

  Average common shares fully
    diluted                             4,820,092     5,760,570      5,222,718     5,718,415

Earnings (loss) per share of
  common stock
  
  Average common shares as adjusted  $       (.86) $       (.72)  $        .20  $       (.76)

  Average common shares fully
    diluted                          $       (.86) $       (.72)  $        .20  $       (.76)



*  Earnings (loss) per  share  of  common  stock  reflect  the  effects of premiums totaling
   $89,775 and $1,383,771 on  the  redemption/repurchase  of subsidiary's preferred stock in
   the periods ended September 30,  1996,  that  were  charged  to retained earnings and not
   included in the determination of net income.
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
Exhibit 4.1

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RELEASE OF SUBSIDIARY GUARANTOR

 

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, acting as Trustee (the “Trustee”) under that certain Indenture, dated as of November 2, 2010, by and among MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), MarkWest Energy Finance Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Finance Corp.” and, together with the Partnership, the “Issuers”), the Subsidiary Guarantors named therein and the Trustee, as amended and supplemented by the First through Twelfth Supplemental Indentures thereto in relation to the Issuers’ outstanding 6.75% Senior Notes due 2020, 6.5% Senior Notes due 2021, 6.25% Senior Notes due 2022, 5.5% Senior Notes due 2023 and 4.5% Senior Notes due 2023 (collectively, the “Indenture”) hereby acknowledges that:

 

(i) it has received a Board Resolution of the General Partner designating East Texas Bulldog NGL Pipeline, LLC, a Texas limited liability company (the “Company”) as an Unrestricted Subsidiary and (ii) the Company has been released from its Guarantee and all other obligations under the Indenture in accordance with Section 11.04(iii) thereof.

 

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning given them in the Indenture.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Trustee has caused this Acknowledgment of Release of Subsidiary Guarantor to be duly executed in its name by its undersigned officer as of this 20th day of March 2014.

 

 

	
 
    	
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL 
   ASSOCIATION, as Trustee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/ Patrick T. Giordano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Patrick   T. Giordano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Vice   President
Exhibit 32.4



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

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







November 1, 2007



/S/  Dennis V. ArriolaDennis V. ArriolaChief Financial Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6263 

To amend title 54, United States Code, and the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act to prohibit medical discrimination relating to applications for commercial use authorizations and special recreation permits, 

and to clarify the status of the holders of commercial use authorizations 

and special recreation permits, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2021 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 

Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 54, United States Code, and the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to prohibit medical 

discrimination relating to applications for commercial use 

authorizations and special recreation permits, and to 

clarify the status of the holders of commercial use authorizations and special recreation permits, 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, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6263 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Guides and 

3 Outfitters from Coronavirus Vaccine Mandates in the 

4 Great Outdoors Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMMERCIAL USE AU6 THORIZATIONS. 

7 Section 101925(b) of title 54, United States Code, 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL DISCRIMINA10 TION.—The Secretary shall not deny an application 

11 for a commercial use authorization under this sec12 tion for any reason relating to the coronavirus vac13 cination status of an applicant or an employee of an 

14 applicant. 

15 ‘‘(4) STATUS OF HOLDER OF COMMERCIAL USE

16 AUTHORIZATION.—A holder of a commercial use au17 thorization issued under this section shall not be 

18 considered to be an employee, contractor, or subcon19 tractor of the Federal Government.’’. 

20 SEC. 3. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY PERMIT21 TING. 

22 Section 803(h) of the Federal Lands Recreation En23 hancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6802(h)) is amended— 

24 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary may’’ and in25 serting the following: 

26 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may’’; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6263 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL DISCRIMINA3 TION.—The Secretary shall not deny an application 

4 for a special recreation permit under paragraph (1) 

5 for any reason relating to the coronavirus vaccina6 tion status of an applicant or an employee of an ap7 plicant. 

8 ‘‘(3) STATUS OF HOLDER OF SPECIAL RECRE9 ATION PERMIT.—A holder of a special recreation 

10 permit issued under paragraph (1) shall not be con11 sidered to be an employee, contractor, or subcon12 tractor of the Federal Government.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31(ii)


                                CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust 2006-HY11 (the
            "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as
            a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
            omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
            made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
            were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
            this report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
            other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the
            period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
            periodic reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s)
            required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and
            except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
            servicer(s) have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing
            agreement(s) in all material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
            instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
            disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reaso nably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
      Bank of New York, as Trustee.

   Date: March 27, 2007


             /s/ Steve Bailey
             ------------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1763-DR]

Iowa; Amendment No. 17 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related 
determinations.

Effective Date:  August 13, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective August 13, 2008.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs, 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-19984 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
```
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00190 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF K .E.M., A CHILD On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 2

Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 11103 - L2, Honorable Jack M. Graham, Presiding



### August 28 , 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. E.G.M. Sr. appeals the order of the trial court terminating his parental rights to K.E.M. E.G.M. Sr.’s appointed counsel has filed a brief in conformity with Anders v. California rendering h er professional opinion that any issue that could be raised on appeal is frivolous and without legal merit. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). E.G.M. Sr. ’s counsel avers that s he has zealously reviewed the record in this matter and can find no arguable points of appeal. Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and provided E.G.M. Sr. with a copy of the brief. Further, counsel has advised E.G.M. Sr. that he has the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. The Court has likewise advised E.G.M. Sr. of this right. Additionally, E.G.M. Sr.’s counsel has2

certified that s he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in prepara tion of a pro se response . See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 321
– 22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). E.G.M. Sr. has not favored the Court with a response
. This Court has long held that an appointed attorney in a termination case might discharge h er professiona l duty to h er client by filing a brief in conformity with the Anders process. See In re A.W.T. , 61 S.W.3d 87, 88
– 89 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2001, no pet.). Likewise, other intermediate appellate courts have so held. See Sanchez v. Tex. Dep’t of Family and P rotective Servs. , No. 03 - 10 - 00249 - CV, 2 011 Tex. App. LEXIS 2162, at *1 ( Tex. App. — Austin Mar . 24, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re L.K.H , No. 11 - 10 - 00080 - CV, 201 1 Tex. App. LEXIS 1706, at *2
– 4 ( Tex. App — Eastland Mar . 10, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re D. D. , 279 S.W.3d 849, 849
– 50 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2009, pet. denied); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 326
– 27 (Tex. App. — Houston [14 th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). We have conducted our own review of the record in this matter and have come to the conclusion that there are no arguable points of appeal. See In re A.W.T. , 61 S.W.3d at 89. We, therefore, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. We remind counsel that E.G.M. Sr. has the right to file a pro se petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court. Finally, having f ound no arguable points of appeal requiring reversal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Mackey K. Hancock Justice
#### Milton J. Gordon, Respondent, v. Louis Shapiro, Appellant.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present—Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6409 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6409

       To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2022

  Mr. Donalds (for himself, Mr. Budd, Mr. Mooney, and Mr. Arrington) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    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 ``Repeal CFPB Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

     The Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. 5481 et 
seq.) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by 
that Act are restored or revived as if the Act had not been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     In connection with the Annual Report of Leo Motors, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Kang, Chief
Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), 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  the  Company.


                                        /s/ Robert Kang
                                        ---------------
                                        Robert Kang
                                        Chief Executive Officer, President
                                        and Interim Chief Financial Officer
                                        March 30, 2009
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl NUNN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10495. D.C. No. CR-96-00460-EHC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 21, 2003.*

Decided July 24, 2003.

Before LEAVY, HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*643MEMORANDUM**

Carl Nunn appeals the revocation of his supervised release, and the 14-month sentence imposed upon the revocation.

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Nunn has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Nunn has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6210

JOSEPH W. EDWARDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01888-RDB)

Submitted: June 29, 2017 Decided: July 10, 2017

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anna S. Kelly, William Nelson Sinclair, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & 

WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph W. Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED