alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 54.

#### Matthew Sharp, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

[1.] Every indictment is sufficient, which states the offence in the terms or language of the I’enal Code, or so plainly that the nature of the offence may •he easily understood by the Jury.

[2.] The case of one who, by pleading not guilty to an indictment for retailing liquors without license, alleges that he retailed with license, is not an exception to the general rale, that he who alleges an affirmative must prove it.

*291Indictment, in Macon Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, September Term, 1854.

Matthew Sharp was put upon his trial, under an indictment charging him with the offence of “retailing without license.” Counsel for defendant moved to *quash,*on the ground that it should have charged him with a “ misdemeanor.” The Court ■ over-ruled the motion, and this is the first error assigned.

The Solicitor General closed his case without proving that defendant had no license. The Court charged the Jury, that it was not incumbent on the State to prove the fact that defendant had no license. The *onus*was on him to show that he had license. This charge is the second error assigned.

Blanbford & Crawford ; Oliver & Clements, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. DeGraffenReid and Whittle, for defendant in error.

*By the. Court.*

Sensing, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The indictment stated the offence in the terms and language of the Code, or so plainly that the nature 'of the offence might be easily understood by the Jury; and that is all that the law requires. *(The Code, Cobb’s Dig.*818, 833.)

It is a general principle of law, that the party that alleges the affirmative of a proposition, especially if the proposition concern something which must be peculiarly within his knowledge, must prove the proposition.

[2.] The case of one who, by pleading not guilty to a charge of retailing without license, alleges that he retailed with license, is not an exception to the general rule. *(Apothecaries’ Company vs. Bentley, Ry.*& *Mood.*159. *See*1 *Starkie on Ev.*362, *and cases cited.*1 *Green. Ev. Sec.*79, *and cases cited.)*

*292In accordance with this principle was the charge of the Court. That charge was therefore right.

So there should be a general affirmance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FRESH CHOICE
INC'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 13, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-13-1999
<CASH>                                           2,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      119
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,108
<PP&E>                                          45,025
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,072)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,175
<COMMON>                                        42,257
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,727)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,981
<SALES>                                         33,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,932
<CGS>                                            8,295
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (217)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (217)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (70)
<NET-INCOME>                                     (287)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.05)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)

<FN>
<F1>For purposes of this exhibit primary means basic.
</FN>

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Fred W. Wagenhals, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Action Performance Companies, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrantsinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financialinformation; and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
/s/ Fred W.WagenhalsFred W. Wagenhals
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0380 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SERENITY ALANA MANN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 26 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

May 20 2024

05/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0380
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENDALL JERMAINE BARNETT

No. 64A01

(Filed 9 November 2001)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 141 N.C. App. 378, 540 S.E.2d 423 (2000), finding no error in a judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole entered by Caldwell, J., on 2 December 1998 in Superior Court, Gaston County, upon a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of first-degree murder. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 October 2001.

*Roy A. Cooper, Attorney General, by Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.*

*Staples Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                          5066050
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1658983
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                0
<PP&E>                                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71688826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           0
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                      46500657
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71688826
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12342558
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                7634286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1579828
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 3128444
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3128444
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3128444
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0


</TABLE>
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

OBJECTIVES
 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Meet energy density requirements 

needed to enable electric aircraft. 

Optimize recharge speed for efficient 

turnaround time. 

Avoid parasitic weight from excess 

packaging and cooling. 

Increase safety with fully solid design 

eliminating use of flammable liquids. 

Combine materials technologies to 

achieve scalability. 

NASA ADVANTAGES
 

Bipolar stack design 

Reduces safety containment weight and 

improves specific energy and power. 

Patented holey graphene 

Improves cathode conductive architecture 

and battery performance. 

New sulfur-selenium combination 

Optimizes performance by balancing energy 

versus power, reduces impedance, and 

creates a more stable discharge profile. 

Computational modeling 

Guides experiments to accelerate 

development time. 

Collaboration 

Engages expertise of mutliple NASA centers, 


Department of Energy (DOE) National 


Laboratories, and industry partners.
 

SABERSSolid-state 

Architecture 

Batteries for 

Enhanced 

Rechargeability 

and Safety 

CHALLENGE
 

Current state-of-the-art batteries
 

are not designed to meet 


the performance and safety
 

requirements of electric aircraft. 


Electric Automotive Energy aircraft sectors 

Power Safety 

Packaging Scalability 

State-of-the-art 

lithium-ion batteries 

Lithium-sulfur batteries 

Solid-state batteries 

SABERS uses new technology 

to achieve targeted properties 

for power, energy, safety, 

packaging, and scalability. 

www.nasa.gov
1

200

300

350

400

500

00

SOLID-STATE DESIGN
 

e ­ e ­

A 

Charge Discharge 

Ultralightweight 

holey graphene 

scaffolding 

S/Se particles 

One unit cell Li-metal anode 

Solid electrolyte 

S/Se cathode 

GOALS 

Optimize composition ratio of solid-state 

electrolyte, active material, and conductive agent 

to significantly improve battery performance. 

Electric Automotive Energy sectors 

Power Safety Pack 

specific energy 

(Wh/kg) 

aircraft 

Packaging Scalability 

SEM of 

holey graphene 

scaffolding 

Performance Target: 500 Wh/kg battery 

Desired mission capability Current Li-ion for market expansion state of the art to regional aircraft 

Current R&D focus SABERS 

for automotive sector 

A feasibility study sponsored by NASA’s 


Convergent Aeronautics Solutions Project
 

Fostering Innovation, Pushing Boundaries, 

and Overcoming Barriers 

Contacts 

Dr. Rocco Viggiano 

NASA Glenn Research Center 

rocco.p.viggiano@nasa.gov 

Dr. John Connell 

NASA Langley Research Center 

john.w.connell@nasa.gov 

Dr. James Wu 

NASA Glenn Research Center 

james.j.wu@nasa.gov 

AERO-027-0121
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-05-1999
<CASH>                                           3,344
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      117
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,624
<PP&E>                                          45,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                (17,826)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,643
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,175
<COMMON>                                        42,260
<OTHER-SE>                                    (26,926)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,831
<SALES>                                         52,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,378
<CGS>                                           12,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    585
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (70)
<NET-INCOME>                                       515
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. EDWARDS

No. 465P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 205

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001. Alternative petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 October 2001.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JAMES RALPH HENDERSHOT, III,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-30002

D.C. No. CR-06-00032-CCL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

James Ralph Hendershot, III appeals from his 16-month sentence of

imprisonment and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his

jury-trial conviction for social security fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(4)

FILED

AUG 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-30002

and theft of federal government money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Contrary to Hendershot’s contention, the imposition of his term of

supervised release does not violate the terms of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(d).

We also reject Hendershot’s contention that his term of supervised release

was not authorized by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a) (“The court . . . may

include as a part of the sentence . . . a term of supervised release after

imprisonment”); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) (for a Class C or Class D felony, not

more than three years of supervised release may be imposed).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.



I, M P Vijay Kumar, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form
20-F of Sify Technologies Limited for the year ended March 31, 2014, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sify Technologies Limited.



Date: July 18,
2014

| | /s/ M P Vijay Kumar           
| | ------------------------------
| | Name: M P Vijay Kumar         
| | Title: Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
#### In the Matter of Bombardier Transportation (Holdings) USA, Inc., as Successor in Interest to ABB Traction, Inc., Appellant, v Telephonics Corporation, Respondent.

[788 NYS2d 80]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, *359J.), entered June 28, 2004, granting respondent’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition for a permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

On the record before us, none of respondent’s claims is time-barred. The first claim, for unpaid work, accrued not when the work was completed, but when petitioner notified respondent that it would not issue a certificate of completion, which was a condition precedent to payment *(see Kassner & Co. v City of New York,*46 NY2d 544, 550 [1979]). Given the facts as set forth in the unrebutted affidavit of respondent’s vice-president, those claims accrued only when petitioner refused a demand for payment.

With regard to the claim for extra work to make the system Y2K compliant, the right to payment did not accrue, under the contract, until the work was invoiced. It is uncontroverted that petitioner directed respondent to hold off invoicing until it had a chance to negotiate with Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority concerning direct payment, and that invoice was issued as soon as respondent realized those negotiations had terminated.

The contract and respondent’s uncontroverted affidavit make clear that the third claim, for spare parts, did not accrue until the obligation to supply those parts expired. Only then, which was well within four years of the filing of this claim, was petitioner required to return or pay for unused spare parts. Concur—Tom, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
61 CAF 11-01771 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF LOKI C.

--------------------------------------- CATTARAUGUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL ORDER SERVICES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; CAROL C., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (ELIZABETH deV. MOELLER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. STEPHEN J. RILEY, OLEAN, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. SCHAVON R. MORGAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, MACHIAS, FOR LOKI C.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Larry M. Himelein, J.), entered July 7, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, adjudged that respondent had permanently neglected the subject child and transferred guardianship and custody of the child to petitioner. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: February 1, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                JOINT STATEMENT


Ken Parsons, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of First 
Community Bank, and Mike Edwards, President, have jointly announced Edwards' 
resignation as President and Director.

Edwards organized and was President of Prairie Security Bank in Yelm.  He was 
appointed President of First Community Bank when it merged with Prairie 
Security earlier this year.  The merger created a bank with $230 million in 
assets, the 14th largest in the state.

The Bank expressed its appreciation for Edwards' leadership with the merger 
and related issues.  Subsequent to the merger, the Bank and Edwards agreed 
that bank management streamlining was necessary and that the role of 
President would be consolidated with that of Chief Executive Officer.

Paul DeTray, Chairman of First Community Financial Group, wished Edwards well 
in his future endeavors.  DeTray confirmed that Parsons was asked to resume 
the position of President.


                                       11