alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Price *v.*The State.

Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 549, n. 82; p, 573, n. 36; p. 575, n. 63.

No. 6118.

March 14, 1928.

Murder. Before Judge Custer. Grady superior court. June 16, 1927.

Russell, O. J.

1. The evidence authorized the verdict of guilty.

2. The evidence to the introduction of which exception was taken, as to the conduct and sayings of the defendant immediately following the shooting of the deceased and another person, was properly admitted. Evidence of acts and conduct at the scene’ of the commission of a crime and shortly thereafter is generally admissible, not only as a part of the res gestos, but for the purpose of characterizing the quo animo with which the deed was perpetrated. *Revel*v. *State,*26 *Ga.*275 (4) ; *Johnson*v. *State,*88 *Ga.*203 (2) (14 S. E. 208) ; *Helms*v. *State,*138 *Ga.*826 (76 S. E. 353) ; *Scrutchens*v. *State,*146 *Ga.*189 (2) (91 S. E. 25); *Davis*v. *State,*11 *Ga. App.*804 (76 S. E. 391); 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, § 923; 1 Michie on Homicide, 670, and cases cited. Upon the trial of one accused of an offense in the perpetration of which malice is an essential ingredient, evidence as to the conduct and sayings of the accused shortly after he made the assault is admissible for the purpose of showing malice. *Davis*v. *State,*supra.

3. The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*121
      *Jesse J. Gainey, G. L. Worthy,*and *Joseph Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*George M. Napier, attorney-general, B. 0. Gardner, solicitor-general, T. B. Gress, assistant attorney-general,*and *G. E. Crow,*contra.
#### W. R. MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY and John J. Egan, Appellees.

No. 9233.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 24, 1964.

Decided June 1, 1964.

D. McK. Winter, Jr., Columbia, S. C. (Winter & Winter, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellant.

David W. Robinson, Columbia, S. C., (Thomas H. Pope, David W. Robinson, II, and Robinson, McFadden & Moore, Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellees.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, W. R. Matthews, brought an action for slander against John J. Egan, an accountant, and U. S. Rubber Company, Egan’s employer. The complaint alleged that Egan, in making the statement complained of, acted in the course of his employment by U. S. Rubber Company.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court not only had before it the pleadings and affidavits of the parties, but in addition heard testimony on the motion in order to satisfy itself whether there was any material issue of fact requiring a jury trial. The court concluded that there was no material issue of fact and directed the entry of a summary judgment for the defendants. The fully developed circumstances under which the alleged slander was uttered do not, in our opinion, raise any substantial issue of fact for submission to a jury, and we are in complete agreement with the District Court’s action and the reasons assigned by it. See opinion of the District Court, 219 F.Supp. 831 (E.D.S.C.1963).

The judgment is

Affirmed.
<PAGE>



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-27555)  pertaining  to the 1997  Stock  Incentive  Plan of  Journal
Register  Company of our report  dated  February  3, 2000,  with  respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule of Journal  Register  Company
included in the Annual  Report (Form 10-K) of Journal  Register  Company for the
year ended December 26, 1999.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


MetroPark, New Jersey
March 23, 2000
#### J. B. Lalonde v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co.

(No. 1498.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 55. *Garnishment; answer of garnishee.*It is only required of the garnishee to make true answers to tho several matters inquired of in the writ of garnishment. [R. S. art. 192.] These several matters are plainly specified in articles 186 and 188 of the Revised Statutes. The garnishee is not required in his answer to set up any defense which the debtor may have, nor to plead any exemption in behalf of the debtor. Nor does the statute, either in terms or by implication, impose upon the garnishee the duty of notifying the debtor of the garnishment proceeding. There are some authorities which hold a doctrine contrary to the above. [Freeman on Executions, § 416, and cases there cited.] But the weight of authority seems to be in support of it. [Thomp. on Homestead and Exemptions, §§ 864, -865, 866; Moore v. R. R. Co. 43 Iowa, 385; Wigwall v. Mining Co. 37 Iowa, 129; Jones v. Tracy, 75 Penn. St. 417; Conly v. Chilcote, 25 Ohio St. 320; Drake on Attach. (5th ed.) § 480.]

*47November 28, 1883.

§ 56. *Same; payment by garnishee is a bar, token.*When a garnishee has fully answered all he is required by the statute to answer, and upon such answer a judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction has been rendered against him, which judgment he has paid, he is entitled to have the amount so paid credited upon his debt to the defendant. [R. S. art, 220.]

Affirmed.
#### STATE in the Interest of D.R.

No. 2011-CK-0264.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 27, 2011.

In re D.R.; —Other; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, No. 2009-120-01-DQ-E; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0404.

Denied.

JOHNSON, J„ would grant.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than October 18, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas**                     (E. Ann Worthy, Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:                

*1. Henry Lewis Gallegly and Marjorie Clair Gallegly*, Dalhart, Texas; to acquire additional voting shares of First Dalhart Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of First National Bank in Dalhart, both of Dalhart, Texas.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 28, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-24664 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service

          - 50 CFR Part 100

### CFR Correction

In Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 18 to 199, revised as of October 1, 2009, on page 663, in § 100.24, remove the second paragraph (a)(3).

[FR Doc. 2010-24662 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60464-60465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24443]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality


Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), announcement is made of a Health Care 
Policy and Research Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting.
    A Special Emphasis Panel is a group of experts in fields related to 
health care

[[Page 60465]]

research who are invited by the Agency for Healthcare Research and 
Quality (AHRQ), and agree to be available, to conduct on an as needed 
basis, scientific reviews of applications for AHRQ support. Individual 
members of the Panel do not attend regularly-scheduled meetings and do 
not serve for fixed terms or a long period of time. Rather, they are 
asked to participate in particular review meetings which require their 
type of expertise.
    Substantial segments of the upcoming SEP meeting listed below will 
be closed to the public in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, section 10(d) of 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2 and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(6). Grant applications for the Advancing Patient Safety with 
Simulation Research Mechanism (R18) applications are to be reviewed and 
discussed at this meeting. These discussions are likely to reveal 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications. This information is exempt from mandatory disclosure 
under the above-cited statutes.
    SEP Meeting on: Advancing Patient Safety with Simulation Research 
Mechanism (R18).
    Date: November 18-19, 2010 (Open on November 18 from 8:30 a.m. to 
8:45 a.m. and closed for the remainder of the meeting).
    Place: Hilton Washington DC/Rockville Hotel &; Executive Meeting 
Center, 1750 Rockville Pike, Conference Room TBD, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Anyone wishing to obtain a roster of members, 
agenda or minutes of the nonconfidential portions of this meeting 
should contact Mrs. Bonnie Campbell, Committee Management Officer, 
Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations, 
AHRQ, 540 Gaither Road, Room 2038, Rockville, Maryland 20850, Telephone 
(301) 427-1554.
    Agenda items for this meeting are subject to change as priorities 
dictate.

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Carolyn M. Clancy,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-24443 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-90-M
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 24 - 0280

_________________ IN RE THE MATTER OF: LORA JEAN OSTER,

Petitioner and Appellee, v. JON KURTIS OBLINGER,

Respondent and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on May 3 , 2024 . The opening brief is now overdue. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file , and serve the opening brief on appeal no later than July 19 , 2024 . F ailure to file the brief within that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all parties .

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 19 2024

06/19/2024
Case Number: DA 24-0280
#### James MESSER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ralph KEMP, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 86-8506.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 5, 1987.

Howard Manchel, Robert L. McGlasson, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellant.

Mary Beth Westmoreland, Asst. Atty. Gen., William B. Hill, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, GODBOLD, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

ON SUA SPONTE RECONSIDERATION

BY THE COURT:

A majority of the judges in active service have voted in favor of rehearing en banc the application for certificate of probable cause and motion for stay of execution. The order dated September 5, 1986, 801 F.2d 404, denying rehearing and rehearing en banc previously entered has been VACATED by a prior order.

IT IS ORDERED that this case shall be heard by this court sitting en banc, with oral argument, on a date hereafter to be fixed. In addition to briefing the issues on the application for certificate of probable cause, the parties are requested to address the merits of the issues which would be presented if a certificate of probable cause were issued, and the jurisdiction of the court to hear this matter en banc. The clerk will specify a schedule for filing en banc briefs.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Three months ended
                                                   June 30,
                                               1999         1998
                                            ----------   ----------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Net income as reported . . . . . . . . .    $1,016,000   $  999,000
                                            ==========   ==========

BASIC:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding. . . . .     3,200,270    3,267,851
                                             =========    =========

  Basic net income per share . . . . . .         $0.32        $0.31
                                             =========    =========


DILUTED:
  Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding. . . . .     3,200,270    3,267,851
    Common stock equivalents from
      options computed on the
      treasury-stock method using
      the average fair market
      value of common stock
      outstanding during the
      period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .       146,353      146,395
                                             ---------    ---------
    Shares used in the
      computation. . . . . . . . . . . .     3,346,623    3,414,246
                                             =========    =========

  Diluted net income per share . . . . .         $0.30        $0.29
                                             =========    =========
</TABLE>
#### Gary Lamar HOLT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0683.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2011.

Gary Lamar Holt, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   EXHIBIT 11

                             Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                             Three and Six Months Ended December 31, 1997 and 1996

                                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)



                                                          Three months ended              Six months ended
                                                               December 31,                  December 31,
                                                       -------------------------     -------------------------
                                                           1997           1996           1997           1996
                                                       ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
 
Net Income .......................................     $    2,742     $    2,398     $    5,428     $    1,629
                                                       ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Number of shares outstanding
  Weighted average shares issued .................      5,950,000      5,950,000      5,950,000      5,950,000
  Less: Weighted average shares held in
             treasury ............................      1,127,282      1,101,255      1,127,498      1,105,222
  Less: Average shares held by the ESOP ..........        476,000        476,000        476,000        476,000
  Plus: ESOP shares released or committed to
             to be released during the fiscal year        129,779         89,399        124,549         84,533
                                                       ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
        Average basic shares .....................      4,476,497      4,462,144      4,471,051      4,453,311

  Plus: Average common stock equivalents .........        376,039        251,433        364,749        249,849
                                                       ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
        Average diluted shares ...................      4,852,536      4,713,577      4,835,800      4,703,160
                                                       ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Earnings per common share
        Basic ....................................     $     0.61     $     0.54     $     1.21     $     0.37
                                                       ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
        Diluted ..................................     $     0.57     $     0.51     $     1.12     $     0.35
                                                       ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

</TABLE>
#### J. E. Bonner & Co. v. Henry Moores.

(No. 3584.)

October 31, 1885.

Appeal from Hill County.

*(Transferred from, Austin.)*

B. D. Tarlton, counsel for appellants.

Clifford Moorman and Tom Ivy, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 12. *Jurisdiction of county court as to amount; case stated.*Appellee sued appellants for a balance alleged to be due on a contract for work and labor done and performed by him for them. He alleged in his petition that the contract price of such work and labor amounted to $391.50. He admitted, however, in his petition, that this amount was justly subject to a credit amounting to $221.29, which credit being deducted from $391.50 leaves the sum of $170.31, and for which latter amount and interest thereon he prayed for and obtained judgment. Appellants moved in arrest of judgment upon the ground that the amount sued for, and in controversy, was not within the jurisdiction of the county court, which motion was overruled. *Held:*As plainly shown in the petition, the amount in controversy, and the amount for which judgment was claimed, was less than $200, and not within the jurisdiction of the county court, the original minimum jurisdiction of that court being $200. [Const, art. Y, sec. 16; R. S. art. 1161.] Appellants’ motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained, and the suit should have been dismissed.

Reversed and remanded.
No. 11,675.

#### The State *v.*Schreiber.

From the Bartholomew Circuit Court.

*F. T. Hord,*Attorney General, *W. Dixon,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *W. B. Hord,*for the State.

Niblack, J.

The indictment in this case was quashed, but we have nothing before us indicating the ground upon which it was held to be insufficient. It was, in its substantial averments and general phraseology, the same as the indictment in the case of *State*v. *Schreiber, ante,*p. 184, except that the sale of intoxicating liquor was charged to have been made to one James W. Blakely, “in the county of Bartholomew, State of Indiana.” It was, therefore, in substance as good, and in form a better, indictment than the one in the last named case. Accepting our decision in *334that case as authority in this, the judgment in this case will have to be reversed.

Filed Nov. 12, 1884.

The judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATE
      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 Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities & Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, H.
      Stewart Parker., President and Chief Executive 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 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 the Company.




/s/
                H. Stewart Parker
              H.
                Stewart ParkerPresident
                and Chief Executive OfficerAugust
                7, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




This
      certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      as
      Exhibit 32.1 to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and in accordance
      with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of Regulation S-K. This certification is not being
“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
      and is not and should not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into the
      Form 10-Q or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934.