alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21018]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

22 CFR Part 122

[Public Notice 6353]


Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: 
Correction

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Correction of final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to the RIN stated in the 
final rule published on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41258) pertaining to 
``Renewal of Registration.'' RIN 1400-AC50 should be RIN 1400-AC51.

DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Sweeney, Office of Defense Trade 
Controls Policy, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of 
State, (202) 663-2865.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of State published a final 
rule (Public Notice 6300) in the Federal Register of July 18, 2008, 
amending Part 122 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
    In rule FR Doc. E8-16537 published on July 18, 2008 (73 FR 41258), 
make the following correction.
    1. On page 41258, second column, ``RIN 1400-AC50'' should read 
``RIN 1400-AC51.''

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Robert S. Kovac,
Managing Director, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E8-21018 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
Exhibit 31.3

Section 302 Certification

I, Joseph J. Berns, Vice President- Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of Plymouth Rubber Company, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Plymouth
Rubber Company, Inc.;

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 officers 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 quarterly report is being
prepared;

(b) [Omitted]

(c) 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

(d) 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 officers 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting
which are reasonable 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: October 12, 2004            /s/ Joseph J. Berns
                                  -------------------------
                                      Joseph J. Berns
                            Vice President-Finance and Chief
                                     Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 9, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21024]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting; Agenda

Time and Date:  9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 16, 2008.

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

STATUS: The three items are open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
8042 Special Investigation Report on the Safety of Parachute Jump 
Operations.
8040 Aircraft Accident Summary Report on Crash of Skydive Quantum Leap, 
de Havilland DHC-6-100, N203E, Sullivan, Missouri, July 29, 2006.
8041 Highway Accident Report--Truck-Tractor Semitrailer Rollover and 
Motorcoach Collision With Overturned Truck, Interstate Highway 94, Near 
Osseo, Wisconsin, October 16, 2005.

News Media Contact:  Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact 
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, September 12, 2008.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived Web cast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
http://www.ntsb.gov.

For More Information Contact:  Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: September 5, 2008.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-21024 Filed 9-5-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

Order 

October 3, 2017

151028-9

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151028

COA: 311356

Macomb CC: 2011-002189-FC

ALBERT REGINALD ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151029

COA: 314604

Macomb CC: 2011-003549-FH

ALBERT REGINALD ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of January 31, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 

2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

People v Comer (Docket No. 152713). On order of the Court, the case having been 

decided on June 23, 2017, 500 Mich ___ (2017), the application is again considered. 

Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE that part 

of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing the Macomb Circuit Court’s sua sponte

order for resentencing, we VACATE the January 22, 2013 order of correction of the 

judgment of sentence, issued in Macomb Circuit Court No. 2011-002189-FC, and we 

REMAND this case to the trial court to reinstate the June 27, 2012 judgment of sentence. 

In Comer, we held that correcting an invalid sentence by adding a statutorily mandated 

term is a substantive correction that a trial court may make on its own initiative only 

before judgment is entered. In this case, the trial court did not have authority to amend 

the judgment of sentence after entry to add a provision for lifetime electronic monitoring 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 3, 2017 

s0925

2

Clerk

under MCL 750.520b(2)(d) and MCL 750.520n. In all other respects, leave to appeal is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### Charlie Royal v. State

No. 25543.

December 5, 1951.

Hon. H. H. Shadle, Judge Presiding.

*Glover Engledow,*Jayton, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawfully storing whisky in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, six months in jail.

The complaint upon which the information was presented contained one count which charged, in effect, that appellant unlawfully stored whisky in a dry area. No reference was therein made, or alleged, to prior convictions for offenses of like character. The information upon which this case was tried and submitted to the jury, and upon which the jury returned its verdict finding appellant guilty as charged, contained a count charging two prior convictions for offenses of like character.

The complaint, not alleging prior convictions, would not *493authorize an information alleging prior convictions, because an information must be based upon a complaint and limited by the allegations of the complaint. Art. 415, C. C. P. The prior convictions, not having been alleged in the complaint, should not have been submitted to the jury.

In the event of another trial, doubt is expressed as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, especially in view of the fact that the prima-facie-evidence statute (Art. 666-23a, Sec. (2), Vernon’s P. C.) relates only to possessing liquor for the purpose of sale.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6724-6725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2091]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8525-6]


Adaptation for Climate-Sensitive Ecosystems and Resources 
Advisory Committee (ACSERAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a public conference call meeting; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA indicated that reports being reviewed by the ACSERAC 
would be incorporated into a scientific assessment to be published by 
the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and that the public would have 
a chance to review and comment on the scientific assessment in April 
2008. The availability of the scientific assessment for public review 
and comment is incorrect.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanna Foellmer, Designated Federal 
Official, ACSERAC, by telephone: 703-347-8508, by e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#472128222b2b2a2235692d28262929260722372669202831"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe98919b9292939b8cd094919f90909fbe9b8e9fd0999188">[email protected]</span></a>, by fax: 703-347-8694, or by regular mail: 
Joanna Foellmer, ORD/NCEA (Mail Code 8601P), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 6725]]

Correction

    In the Federal Register of January 7, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-17, on 
page 1221, in the second column, change the last complete sentence to 
read:
    The CCSP expects that the scientific assessment will be completed 
by May 31, 2008. The scientific assessment will undergo an external 
peer review consistent with the OMB peer review guidance for a Highly 
Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA). For details on the scientific 
assessment review please go to: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/itmanagement/prplans/ID102.html.

    Dated: January 25, 2008.
Michael W. Slimak,
Acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
 [FR Doc. E8-2091 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS

E ASTLAND

, T EXAS

J UDGMENT

Amber Dawn Russell

, * From the 118 th District

Court of Howard County,

Trial Court No. 14568

.

Vs. No. 11

- 15

- 00303

- CR * December 31 , 2015

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed. Therefor e, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion,

the appeal is dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20944]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Open Meeting of the Ad Hoc IRS Forms and Publications/Language 
Services Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Ad Hoc IRS Forms and Publications/
Language Services Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will 
be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 14, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 
954-423-7979.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Ad Hoc IRS Forms and Publications/Language 
Services Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, October 14, 2008, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone 
conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written 
statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie 
Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, 
FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to 
participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with 
Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-
7977, or you can post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
Roy L. Block,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E8-20944 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         (2,632)
<SECURITIES>                                 2,035,381
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           4,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,254)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,336,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,143
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           329
<OTHER-SE>                                     392,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,336,946
<SALES>                                          7,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               165,782
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               104,558
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,450
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,758
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,758
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
        

</TABLE>
(173 La. 699)

#### STATE v. CROXTON et al.

No. 31547.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 30, 1931.

H. B. Lingle, J. C. Smith, and S. L. Herold, Jr., all of Shreveport, for appellants.

Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., James U. Galloway, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, and E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LAND, J.

Defendants were convicted of the crime of robbery, and each was sentenced to the state penitentiary for a term of not less than eight nor more than twelve years.

The record contains but one bill of exception, .which declares that it was prejudicial error to admit evidence of Croxton’s attempt to escape from jail, and of his attempt to procure a pistol while in jail.

The evidence admitted showed that Orox-ton enlarged a hole in the ceiling of his cell and was caught under the roof while trying to effect an opening by means of a piece of iron.

The evidence admitted further showed that Croxton asked a state witness to pass him a pistol by means of a string lowered from his cell. Under the circumstances, the jury could fairly infer that the pistol was to be used in an attempted escape.

In our opinion, the evidence offered by the state was relevant and properly admitted.

In State v. Beatty, 30 La. Ann. 1266, it is said: “Attempts to escape on the part of one accused of crime are not of themselves sufficient to authorize conviction, but if shown lend a strong presumption of guilt, unless ■otherwise explained. They are classed with other ex post facto indications of mental emotion, and are receivable in evidence, but are to be weighed in connection with the surrounding circumstances, and the time at which the attempt is made is not material except as going to show the animus of the accused. The usual rule is laid down in “Wharton’s Am. Grim. Law, see. 714, and we have been referred to no authority limiting it.”

As no bill has been reserved by the accused to the charge of the court to the jury, it must be presumed that the judge a quo correctly charged the jury as to the law relating to attempts to escape.

The conviction and sentence of each of the accused are affirmed.
181 La. 72

#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. Stanley POSTEK.

No. 33025.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 1935.

Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellant.

E. M. Robbert, City Atty., and W. Som-mer Benedict, Asst. City Atty., both of New Orleans, for appellee.

BRUNOT, Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for distributing circulars without a permit, in violation of Ordinance No. 8080, O. C. S., of the city of New Orleans.

The same proceedings, including the filing of the demurrer, and the failure of counsel to have the same submitted, to the court, from the inception of the trial to the entry of the order of appeal, were had in this case as were had in City of New Orleans v. Charles Ford (La. Sup.) 158 So. 624, this day decided.

Therefore, for the reasons assigned in said case, the appeal herein is dismissed.
189 La. 678

#### ADRANGA v. TARDO.

No. 34512.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 7, 1938.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1938.

George Piazza and B. M. Goodman, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Richard A. Dowling, of New Orleans, for appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

This is a suit for separation from bed and board instituted by the wife against her husband on the grounds of cruel treatment and public defamation, in which the defendant reconvened on similar grounds *485and the additional ground of abandonment. There was. judgment in the lower court rejecting plaintiff’s demands and granting defendant’s reconventional demand. The plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff’s action is based on the allegations in her petition that her husband publicly defamed her by calling her vile names a number of times, in the presence of third persons, particularly on March 26, 1937; and that he was guilty of cruel treatment towards her of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable, having beaten her and threatened to kill her with a knife on March 28, 1937.

Defendant denied these allegations, and in his reconventional demand averred that his wife and her relatives “abused, cursed and nagged him constantly and continuously” since his marriage to the plaintiff, on November 29, 1936, until she deserted him four months later, oh March 28, 1937; that on the next day, while he was at work, she removed all the furniture from the house, leaving his clothes on the floor, and locked the house; and that she falsely and maliciously accused him in her petition for a separation of having beaten and threatened to kill her.

The trial judge sustained the position of the defendant and, in his reasons for judgment, stated that the plaintiff “is very pugnacious and bellicose” and that she led her husband “á most pitiful life almost from the very beginning of their marriage.”

This court, in the case of Amy v. Berard, 49 La.Ann. 897, 22 So. 48, affirmed “the doctrine announced in a very early case, that the law which provides for a separation from bed and board in certain cases is made for the relief of the oppressed party, not for interfering in quarrels where both parties commit reciprocal excesses and outrages. Durand v. Her Husband, 4 Mart. (O.S.) 174.” See, also, Trowbridge v. Carlin, 12 La.Ann. 882; Castanedo v. Fortier, 34 La.Ann. 135, 136.

A mere reading of the plaintiff’s own testimony convinces us of the correctness of the trial judge’s impression of the plaintiff. Her testimony and that of her witnesses — her sister and her uncle — unfavorably impressed us as it did the trial judge. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the defendant did everything within his means and ability to make their married life happy and contented, but because of the constant abuse and nagging by his wife and her relatives, from the very beginning of their married life, their living together is “insupportable” within the meaning and contemplation of the Revised Civil Code, article 138.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed; all costs to be paid by plaintiff.

HIGGINS, J., absent.