alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
416 A.2d 1131

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 24, 1979.

Filed Dec. 21, 1979.

*145Alexander Hemphill, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Ellen Mattleman, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and ROBERTS and LIPEZ, JJ.*

*

 Justice Samuel J. Roberts of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, is sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

On March 8, 1978, a court sitting without jury convicted appellant of murder of the third degree. After denying post-verdict motions, the court sentenced appellant to a term of imprisonment of 10 to 20 years. Appellant contends that *146(1) the evidence is not sufficient to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) a statement he gave police after arrest should have been suppressed; and (3) his arrest was unlawfully without warrant. We affirm.

Appellant was sitting on his porch when a female neighbor, a casual acquaintance, dropped over one evening. Appellant’s brother, intoxicated, stepped out onto the porch from , inside the house, placed his arm around the neighbor and said, “It’s a free country, and I don’t have to pay him no attention.” Appellant went up to his room, thought about the incident for a few minutes, returned with a baseball bat and struck his brother twice on the head. This evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant acted out of malice, see *Commonwealth v. Hinchcliffe,*479 Pa. 551, 388 A.2d 1068 (1978) (use of deadly weapon on vital part of body justified finding of guilty of murder of third degree) and not under provocation sufficient to cause a reasonable man to act in the heat of passion. See *Commonwealth v. Whitfield,*475 Pa. 297, 380 A.2d 362 (1977). Appellant argues that, because of a leg injury, he is more readily provoked than others. This fact, if true, is irrelevant. The legal test for provocation is an objective one, not dependent upon the peculiarities of any defendant. *Commonwealth v. Miller,*473 Pa. 398, 374 A.2d 1273 (1977).

Appellant asserts that a statement he gave police after arrest should have been suppressed. The Commonwealth, however, did not introduce the statement at trial. Thus, it is unnecessary to determine whether the statement should have been suppressed. See *Commonwealth v. McDonald,*459 Pa. 17, 326 A.2d 324 (1974); *Commonwealth v. Sheperd,*269 Pa.Super. 291, 409 A.2d 894 (1979).

Finally, appellant contends that his arrest was unlawfully without warrant. Appellant did not specifically raise this issue either in his suppression motion or in post-verdict motions and the post-verdict court did not consider the issue. Thus, the claim is not preserved for review. See *Commonwealth v. Carrillo,*483 Pa. 215, 395 A.2d 570 (1978) (post-ver*147diet); *Commonwealth v. Sherard,*483 Pa. 183, 394 A.2d 971 (1978) (pretrial).

Judgment of sentence affirmed..
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6749]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           MEASURES REFERRED

  The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous 
consent and referred as indicated:

       H.R. 1266. An act to provide for the exchange of lands 
     within Admiralty Island National Monument, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32.1

|  | (1)  | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and 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. |
|--|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                       |        |                                                                    |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                                                                    |   |
| Date:      August 13, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Glenn      Estrella                                            |   |
|                       |   | Glenn      Estrella                                                     |   |
|                       |   | Chief      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and      Director |   |
|                       |   | (Principal      Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)       |   |

----
April 14, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

EMMA E. DU BOIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DORA MILLER DU BOIS, 

DECEASED, Appellant

NO. 14-15-01032-CV V.

MUHAMMAD IRFAN, M.D., AND ABBAS LOKHANDWALA, M.D., 

Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

order signed by the court below on November 16, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Emma E. Du Bois.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23431]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
    Title: Delivery Verification Certificate and Procedure.
    OMB Control Number: 0694-0016.
    Form Number(s): BIS-647P.
    Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a currently 
approved information collection).
    Burden Hours: 56.
    Number of Respondents: 100.
    Average Hours per Response: 30 minutes to complete BIS-647P; 1 
minute for recordkeeping requirement; and 4 hours for a special 
circumstance.
    Needs and Uses: The Delivery Verification Certificate is the result 
of an agreement between the United States and a number of other 
countries to increase the effectiveness of their respective controls 
over international trade in strategic commodities. The form is issued 
and certified by the government of the country of ultimate destination, 
at the request of the U.S. government (BIS). Supplement No. 5 to Part 
748 of the current Export Administration Regulations covers three 
special circumstances in which the usual procedure for the Delivery 
Verification Certificate would require clarification.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not-
for-profit institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jasmeet Seehra, (202) 395-3123.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa9eb283949f91ba9e9599d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44200c3d2a212f04202b276a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jasmeet Seehra, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#115b70627c7474654e5a3f4e427474796370517e7c733f747e613f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e341f0d131b1b0a213550212d1b1b160c1f3e11131c501b110e50191108">[email protected]</span></a>, or by fax to (202) 
395-5167.

    Dated: September 15, 2010.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-23431 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE TRANS ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND
               IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
               FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                      38,021
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              419,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                 40,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           497,841
<PP&E>                                   6,665,597
<DEPRECIATION>                           1,507,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           7,183,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,711,863
<BONDS>                                  2,677,304
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     3,239
<OTHER-SE>                               6,202,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             7,183,826
<SALES>                                    781,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           781,132
<CGS>                                      657,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              657,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           351,867
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             9,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         126,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (338,574)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             20,000
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                             (318,574)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.10)
        

</TABLE>
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 38 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to authorize 

the line item veto. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2007 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to authorize the line item veto. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 38 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘In the case of any bill, order, resolution, or vote 

3 which is presented to the President under section 7 of Ar4 ticle I, the President may decline to approve in whole any 

5 dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, any item 

6 of new direct spending, or any tax benefit. A matter which 

7 the President declines to approve under this article of 

8 amendment shall be returned with his objections to the 

9 House in which it originated, and shall be treated in the 

10 same manner as a bill which the President returns without 

11 signing under section 7 of Article I.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>       THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
               EXTRACTED FROM THE TRANS ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL
               STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
               IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
               FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>   1

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-30-1999
<CASH>                                                    0
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       244,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    245,931
<PP&E>                                           10,492,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,830,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9,452,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7,681,916
<BONDS>                                             848,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              2,464
<OTHER-SE>                                       14,910,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9,452,512
<SALES>                                             266,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    266,860
<CGS>                                               183,137
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,294,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  743,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,771,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,771,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,771,839)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.76)


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: World classPublished Aug. 19, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- Air Force TV has released the latest episode of the Air Force's flagship television program, BLUE.
This episode features Airmen with multiple goals – to serve their country and to compete in the Olympic Games. Thanks to the Air Force World Class Athlete Program, elite athletes can do both – they can serve as active-duty Airmen without giving up their dreams of representing the United States at the Olympics.BLUE 



AFNS 



World Class Athlete Program
#### Bach, Meiss & Co. v. C. A. Ginacchio.

(No. 1192, Op. Book No. 3, p. 357.)

Appeal from Harrison County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1315. *Computation of time; rule as to.*The rule is settled, that, in the computation of time, the day upon which the act was done, from which the time is to be computed ordinarily, must be excluded from the count, and this rule applies to the time within which appeal bonds must be given. The court erred in this case in the computation of the time of the filing of the appeal bond. The bond was filed within the ten days from the date of the judgment. The judgment was rendered August 31, 1880, and the. appeal bond was filed September 10, 1880. The judgment of this court of a former day, reversing the judgment of the court below and dismissing the suit, .is set aside. [Note.— See same case, *ante,*p. 162.]

§ 1316. *Accounts; construction of act relating to collection of; counterclaim may be pleaded against sworn account without a denial of the account under oath.*Ap.pellants sued upon a sworn account. Appellee, without .denying under oath the justice of the account sued upon, .pleaded a counterclaim, and was allowed to prove and recover judgment upon it. *Held:*The statute -with respect to such accounts [R. S. 2266] is not susceptible of .the construction that it prohibits the defense of a counterclaim, unless the justice of the account sued upon has been denied under oath. Its effect is to make an account authenticated in pursuance thereof *prima, facie*
      *767evidence of the justice of the same, and unless the defendant shall under oath, file a written denial of the justice of the account, in whole or in part, under oath, he will not be permitted to deny the same or any item therein not so denied. This was not intended to prevent a defendant from asserting counterclaims without first denying the account under oath, for such defenses are consistent with the, justness of the account. The object p.nd purpose of the statute was to enable parties to so authenticate their accounts as to make them *prima facie*evidence, and in this way, in the absence of other proof to recover upon the same, and to prevent surprise and undue advantage, the defendant is required by -written plea, under oath, filed one day before the trial, to deny the justice of the account, or such items therein the justice of which he intends to contest. Here there was no denial of the justice of the account sued on; it was admitted by appellee. The court did not err in allowing appellee to plead and prove his counterclaim.

March 22, 1882.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

               USA KARATE CHAMPIONSHIP IN LONG BRANCH, NJ

                                 ______

                        HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 18, 1995
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 21, 1995, the New Jersey 
State Championship of USA Karate will be held at the Long Branch, NJ, 
Middle School. It will be an honor and a privilege for me to be in 
attendance at what promises to be a most exciting and impressive 
display of the martial arts.
  Mr. Speaker, at Sunday's event, over 300 competitors of all ages, all 
rankings, and all styles will be competing at their respective levels. 
The winners will qualify for the national championship which will be 
held in Akron, OH, in August. This year marks the 7th consecutive year 
that the New Jersey championship has been held in Long Branch.
  Recently, I joined with Senator Bradley of New Jersey in working to 
have USA Karate included in the Pan-American games held in Argentina in 
March. These fine American athletes competed and won seven medals, 
finishing third over all. It was an honor to get behind this 
initiative, which has brought honor and distinction not only to the 
competitors, but to our country as a whole.
  Mr. Speaker, the credit for these successes is due largely to the 
work of Mr. Walter J. O'Neill, Jr., of Long Branch, NJ, and his wife, 
Patricia Booth-O'Neill. In 1979, Mr. O'Neill started the Atlantic 
Karate Academy in Long Branch. Walter and Patricia now serve as chief 
instructors. Mr. O'Neill, a black belt in several martial art 
disciplines, is a member of the World Karate Federation Organizing 
Committee, one of only three Americans on this board. He serves as a 
member of committees intended to get karate into both the Pan-American 
games and the Olympic games. The Atlantic Academy holds a number of 
distinctions, having produced hundreds of State and national champions.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me to pay tribute to 
Walter and Patricia O'Neill, the Atlantic Karate Academy, and all the 
fine athletes who will compete on Sunday.
Vol. 141

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1995

No. 83

House of Representatives
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           THE NEED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL

  (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, when is Newt Gingrich going to learn that he 
is not above the rules of this House?
  Earlier this year, Mr. Gingrich announced he would not sign his $4.5 
million book deal until the Ethics Committee approved it. But now he 
has changed his mind.
  Even though the book is still under investigation, not only has Mr. 
Gingrich signed the book deal, he has embarked on a Rupert Murdoch-
financed book tour to hawk his book.
  At a time when the American taxpayers will be paying his salary, Mr. 
Gingrich is going to be on the road promoting a book that will make him 
a multimillionaire.
  Mr. Gingrich's lawyers said that since there has been no ruling, they 
just assumed that no rules have been broken. The Ethics Committee 
issued a strong rebuke: ``You should make no such assumption.''
  Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House is above the rules, not even the 
Speaker.
  The only way we are going to get to the bottom of this case is to 
appoint an outside counsel to investigate.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 32



Certification Furnished 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 on Form 10-K of Gulf Island Fabrication,
Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:



| | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the
Report.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    Kerry J. ChauvinKerry J. Chauvin Chief Executive Officer March 13, 2006By:

/s/    Joseph P. Gallagher, IIIJoseph P. Gallagher, III Chief Financial Officer March 13, 2006




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and will be retained by Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
583 A.2d 336

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEWIS MALINOWSKI.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.