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

Opinion delivered November 16, 1925.

1. Intoxicating liquors — making mash — evidence.—In a prosecution of one as principal in making mash, evidence that defendant, pursuant to agreement, bought ingredients for others to make the mash, -without showing that he was present at the time the mash was made or that he actually participated in the making thereof, was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

2. Criminal law — conviction in felony. — One cannot be indicted and tried for a felony as a principal unless present, aiding and abetting in the crime.

Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; *J. H. McCollum,*Judge;

reversed.

*Eardage é Wilson,*for appellant.

*E. W. Applegate,*Attorney General, -and *Darden Moose,*Assistant, for appellee.

, Humphreys, J.

Appellant was indicted in tbe circuit court of Clark County under act 324 of the Acts of tbe General Assembly of 1921 -as a principal in making masb and possessing a still. Subsequently be was tried and convicted of making masb, and was adjudged to serve a term of one year in tbe State Penitentiary as punishment therefor. Appellant bad duly prosecuted an appeal to this court from tbe judgment of conviction, seeking a reversal thereof upon the ground that tbe evidence is insufficient to support tbe verdict and consequent judgment.

Tbe evidence tended to show that appellant was interested in making tbe masb by virtue of an agreement on bis part to furnish the materials out of which to make same to Jobn Ledbetter and Walter Dodson for a part of the whiskey.

John Ledbetter testified that be and Walter Dodson made such an agreement with appellant in Arlcadelphia, and that, pursuant to tbe agreement, appellant bought ingredients for them to make tbe mash; that they were in tbe act of making the third run when tbe officers arrested Walter land himself.

*878The still was operated about a mile and one-half from the home of appellant, and Ledbetter testified that it belonged to appellant.

There is no evidence whatever in the record tending to show that appellant was present at the time the mash wlas made or that he actually participated in making same.

By reference to the act under which appellant was indicted, it will be seen that it does not make one merely interested in making mash a principal as is the case in the act prohibiting the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors; hence it was unlawful to indict appellant as a principal. He should have been indicted and tried as an accessory to the crime of making mash. One cannot be indicted and tried for a felony as a principal unless present, aiding, and abetting in the crime- The evidence fails to show that appellant was present, aiding and abetting in making the mash. For this reason, the judgment must ¡be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Anthony D. SCOTT.

No. 2010-OK-1813.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 5, 2010.

In re Scott, Anthony D.; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Assumption, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 98-38; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1297.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

Certification Required by Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 13a-14(a) (Chief
                               Financial Officer)

I, Claire M. Chadwick, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PennFed Financial
Services, 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 officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

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

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

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 functions):

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

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

Date: May 10, 2005


/s/ Claire M. Chadwick
-----------------------------------
Claire M. Chadwick
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Controller


                                       30
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60473-60474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24498]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1932-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]


Kansas; Amendment No. 3 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 State of Kansas (FEMA-1932-DR), dated August 10, 2010, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 20, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael R. 
Scott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer 
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of William J. Doran III as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(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

[[Page 60474]]

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation 
Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-24498 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
| · | the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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 periods presented therein. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ Takeshi Idezawa       |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: Takeshi Idezawa          |   |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |   |
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 0 4 6 3

- 1 1

J A M E S T R A V I S H E N D E R S O N , A p p e l l a n t

v .

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N R E H E A R I N G O F A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E F I F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

C O L L I N C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m .

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d a n d w a s s e n t e n c e d t o

c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r 1 8 0 d a y s a n d a f

i n e o f $ 2 , 0 0 0

. T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d t h e

c o n v i c t i o n

. He n d e r s o n v

. S t a t e , ( T e x

. A p p

. — D a l l a s , N o

. 0 5

- 1 0

- 0 0 4 7 6

- C R , d e l i v e r e d

M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 1 )

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w w a s d i s m i s s e d a s u n t i m e l y

f i l e d o n J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 1 1

. A p p e l l a n t h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r r e h e a r i n g r e q u e s t i n gHende rson - 2

r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f h i s p e t i t i o n s o t h a t i t w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h i s C o u r t

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s

m o t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s g r a n t e d

. H i s p e t i t i o n f i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t o n J u n e 1 , 2 0 1 1 , i s

r e i n s t a t e d a s o f A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 , a n d w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n a c c o r d w i t h T e x

. R

. A p p

. P

. 6 8

.

A p p e l l a n t m u s t f

i l e c o p i e s o f h i s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w w i t h t h i s C o u r t w i t h i n

1 4 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o p i n i o n

. S e e T e x

. R

. A p p

. P

. 9

. 3 ( b )

.

D e l i v e r e d A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 D o n o t p u b l i s h
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7186

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL BURGESS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CR-88-233-A, CA-92-1816-AM)

Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: October 29, 1997

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan Hideto Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert

Clifford Chesnut, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Burgess appeals from the district court's

order denying his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994)

(current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)).

In a prior appeal, this court vacated and remanded to the district

court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, with appointed counsel, to

determine whether Burgess requested his attorney to note an appeal

from his conviction. The district court concluded, after hearing

testimony from Burgess and his attorney, that Burgess had not, in

fact, asked his attorney to appeal. Our review of the transcript

from that hearing reveals that the district court's conclusion was

properly supported. Because Burgess failed to appeal, his other

claims are waived. See United States v. Emanuel, 869 F.2d 795, 796

(4th Cir. 1989) (nonconstitutional claims not raised on direct appeal may not be asserted in a collateral proceeding). Accordingly,

we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2000 and the Consolidated Statement of
Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000921112
<NAME> LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,184
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,993
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       3,052,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                 283,695
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,182,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,565,108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    120,814
<COMMON>                                            67
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,174,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,182,832
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               128,959
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,648
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,423
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,423
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,875)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,119
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.49  Annex 4  To the Cash Pooling Agreement  Act of accession  Addendum #1  Polca,5 Place du Champ de Mars, Brussels, Belgium,  To the attention of the Director,  Re: Accession to the Polca Cash Pooling Agreement (the Agreement) of Cnova N.V. (the participating Company)  This addendum amends and supersedes Article 4 of the Act of accession to the Agreement signed by the Participating Company on August 1, 2014.  Article 4 should be read as follows:  4.Cnova N.V. confirms having provided Polca with its latest financial accounts, including financial information on its equity and its financial debts, in accordance with Article 6.2 of the Agreement, on the basis of which the Maximum Amount of Advances is set to 250 million (two hundred and fifty million) euros.  We confirm having the authority and capacity to sign the Addendum of the Act of accession to the Agreement.  For the good shape, please return to us one of the two originals of these preceded by the words read and approved and your handwritten signature.  Kind regards,
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leroy BREAUX.

No. 2010-K-1022.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re L.B.; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 8751-07; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 09-1136.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7472

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARTELL WHITAKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-1016; CA-01-3207) Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 20, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Martell Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Martell Whitaker, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitaker 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7176 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7176

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reestablish the 15 
                    percent corporate rate bracket.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 27, 2018

 Mr. King of Iowa (for himself and Mr. Blum) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reestablish the 15 
                    percent corporate rate bracket.

    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 ``Restoring Economic Opportunities for 
Small Family C-Corporations''.

SEC. 2. REESTABLISHMENT OF 15 PERCENT CORPORATE RATE BRACKET.

    (a) In General.--Section 11(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended to read as follows:
    ``(b) Amount of Tax.--The amount of tax imposed by subsection (a) 
shall be the sum of--
            ``(1) 15 percent of so much of the taxable income as does 
        not exceed $50,000, and
            ``(2) 21 percent of so much of the taxable income as 
        exceeds $50,000.
In the case of a corporation which has taxable income in excess of 
$100,000 for any taxable year, the amount of tax determined under the 
preceding sentence for such taxable year shall be increased by the 
lesser of (A) 5 percent of such excess, or (B) $3,000.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 11 of such Code is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Treatment of Certain References.--Any reference in this title 
(or in any other provision of law) to the rate of tax imposed by this 
section shall be treated as a reference to the rate of tax specified in 
subsection (b)(2) unless such reference clearly indicates otherwise.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX) 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

April 02, 2014

Ms. Rebekah Shropshire

TDCJ #1495618

Crain 1401 St. School Road

Gatesville, TX 76599

Hon. Michael A. Sheppard

District Attorney

307 N. Gonzales

Cuero, TX 77901

- 6544

Re: Cause No. 13

- 14

- 00204

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 07

- 10

- 10,763

Style: In re Rebekah Shropshire

Enclosed please find the opinion issued by the Court on this date

.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch

Enc.

c c: State Prosecuting Attorney

24 th District Court

Hon. Tabeth Gardner, District Clerk/De Witt