alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Giles, Appellant.

(No. 6991

Decided July 9, 1948.)

*Mr. Carson Hoy*and *Mr. Harry S. Schwartz,*for •appellee.

*Mrs. Ophelia Emden,*for appellant.

By the Court.

Defendant below appeals to this court from a conviction by a jury of the crime of sodomy.

The proof in the record is clear and convincing that substantial justice has been done in the conviction of the defendant of the crime charged.

Among many assigned errors, it is claimed that evidence of a rape committed by the defendant earlier on the same day, admitted by virtue of Section 13444-19, General Code, constituted prejudicial error.

It is true that during the trial the defendant’s counsel stipulated that defendant was present at the time and place charged, but he coupled that admission with the statement that there was a fight between defendant and the prosecuting witness. The plea of not guilty still stood and the cause of the struggle remained to be proved by the state. According to the state’s evidence, force was used to accomplish this sex crime. Evidence that accused used force on the same day to perpetrate another sex crime has some tendency to prove that was the motive for the use of force in this instance.

We hold the evidence admissible under the statute, as reasonably disclosing a purpose to use the force *40necessary to consummate a sex crime over the victim’s-objection and resistance, within the purview of the-holding of the Supreme Court in *State*v. Moore, 149 Ohio St., 226, 78 N. E. (2d), 365, and *Barnett*v. *State,*104 Ohio St., 298, 135 N. E., 647, 27 A. L. R., 351.

Error is also specifically assigned to the following-of the court’s charge:

‘ ‘ If the state of Ohio, or the prosecution, has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed other acts similar in nature to the one-charged in the presentment or indictment in this case,, you may consider them in any way in which they will-assist you in arriving at the truth or falsity of the-charge presented in the indictment.”

The above charge is erroneous, as being incomplete,, in failing to limit same to the purpose for which the-evidence was introduced. However, in view of the-clear and convincing proof in the record of the guilt of the defendant, we find that no prejudicial error occurred.

The affidavits used on the motion for a new trial were-not brought into the record by a bill of exceptions,, and, for that reason we could not in any event give them effect. We have found the affidavits among the-papers and have read them. As to the affidavit of the prosecuting witness, it is sufficient to say that she did' not change in any way the testimony she gave at the trial. As to the other affidavit, it does not constitute-a material contradiction of the testimony of the police officers. Furthermore, there is no showing that it was-newly discovered evidence.

We find no other error in the record prejudicial to-the defendant.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Matthews, P. J., Ross and Hildebrant, JJ., concur..
<Page>


        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective
Amendment No. 9 to the Registration Statement on Form N-4 (No. 333-43886)
(the "Registration Statement") of our report dated March 31, 2005, relating
to the consolidated financial statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company
(as of September 6, 2005, known as Union Security Insurance Company), which
appears in such Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to
us under the heading "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in such
Registration Statement.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
November 8, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 580 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 270
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 580

                          [Report No. 105-791]

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) 
 waiving certain enrollment requirements for the remainder of the One 
  Hundred Fifth Congress with respect to any bill or joint resolution 
   making general or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1998

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) 
 waiving certain enrollment requirements for the remainder of the One 
  Hundred Fifth Congress with respect to any bill or joint resolution 
   making general or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) 
waiving certain enrollment requirements for the remainder of the One 
Hundred Fifth Congress with respect to any bill or joint resolution 
making general or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1999. The 
joint resolution shall be considered as read for amendment. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled 
by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees; and 
(2) one motion to recommit.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 270

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 580

                          [Report No. 105-791]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 131) 
 waiving certain enrollment requirements for the remainder of the One 
  Hundred Fifth Congress with respect to any bill or joint resolution 
   making general or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 7, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
WHAT

Cyber ranges are interactive, simulated representations of an organization’s local network, system, tools, and applications that are connected to a 

simulated Internet level environment. They provide a safe, legal environment 

to gain hands-on cyber skills and a secure environment for product development 

and security posture testing. 

A cyber range may include actual hardware and software or may be a combination 

of actual and virtual components. Ranges may be interoperable with other cyber 

range environments. The Internet level piece of the range environment includes 

not only simulated traffic, but also replicates network services such as webpages, 

browsers, and email as needed by the customer.

Cyber Ranges

NI

NATI O NAL I N

CEI T IATIVE F OR 

CYBERSECURITY EDUCATION

nist.gov/nice

Visit nist.gov/nice/nicewg to access more resources and learn more about cyber ranges and the NICE 

Working Group Training and Certifications Subgroup or email us at nist.nice@nist.gov

WHERE

Cyber ranges are virtual 

environments that use actual 

network equipment, as 

required. They can range from 

single stand-alone ranges in 

a single schoolhouse or an 

organization to internet replicating 

ranges that are accessible from around 

the world. Cyber ranges may be used 

internally by private and public organizations, 

or by students in the classroom or online from 

training and education providers.

Cyber ranges are in use and provided by 

organizations across the Government, 

Private Industry, and Academia.

WHO

Professionals from diverse groups such 

as information technology, cybersecurity, law enforcement, incident 

handlers, continuity of operations, 

and others use cyber ranges to 

improve individual and team 

knowledge and capabilities.

Students can use cyber ranges to apply 

knowledge in a simulated network 

environment, develop cyber skills, work 

as teams to solve cyber problems, and 

prepare for cyber credentialing examinations.

Educators can use cyber ranges as a classroom 

aide or instruct or assess students virtually. 

Organizations can use cyber ranges to evaluate their cyber 

capability, test new procedures, train their team on new 

organizational and technical environments and protocols 

before they are introduced into the organizational 

environment and expand personnel abilities.

Realistic simulation of 

the internet, systems, 

applications, and 

devices in a training 

environment

Cyber Range

& P

Certication

ersonnel Assessment

Classro

o

m

E

d

ucat

oi

n

Competitions

& Exercises

G

ol

bal Thre

at Updates

WHY

Cyber Ranges Can:

Provide performance-based 

learning and assessment

Provide a simulated environment 

where teams can work together 

to improve teamwork and team 

capabilities

Provide real-time feedback

Simulate on-the-job experience 

Provide an environment where 

new ideas can be tested and 

teams can work to solve complex 

cyber problems
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT






Board of Directors and Stockholders
SFSB Holding Company

We have  reviewed the  accompanying  consolidated  balance sheet of SFSB Holding
Company  and  subsidiary  as of March 31,  2002,  and the  related  consolidated
statements  of income for the three month periods ended March 31, 2002 and 2001,
and the consolidated statements of cash flow and changes in stockholders' equity
for the three month period ended March 31, 2002.  These  consolidated  financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information  consists  principally  of applying  analytical  and  procedures  to
financial  data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with auditing  standards  generally  accepted in the United States of
America,  the objective of which is the  expression of an opinion  regarding the
financial  statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly,  we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance with auditing  standards  generally
accepted in the United States of America,  the consolidated  balance sheet as of
December 31, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders'  equity  and cash  flows for the year then  ended  (not  presented
herein);  and in our report  dated  March 1, 2002 we  expressed  an  unqualified
opinion  on  those  consolidated  financial  statements.  In  our  opinion,  the
information  set  forth in the  accompanying  consolidated  balance  sheet as of
December 31, 2001, is fairly stated,  in all material  respects,  in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
May 10, 2002
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

Re:  Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2004-NC1 Asset-Backed
     Pass-Through Certificates Series 2004-NC1

  I, Susan Mills, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Carrington Mortgage
Loan Trust, Series 2004-NC1, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
 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 as of
the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing,
 or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in
the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the
terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, and except as
disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
servicing agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
that is included in these reports.

    In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company and New Century Mortgage Corporation.


CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST INC.

By: /s/  Susan Mills
Name:  Susan Mills
Title:  Vice President
Date:  March 30, 2005
EXHIBIT 44

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-44 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:7713
Document title: THE SMARTEST & SAFEST HOVERBOARD FOR SALE - GYROOR

Capture URL: https://gyroorboard.com/collections/gyroor-hoverboard-for-sale

Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:07:10 GMT Page 1 of 2

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-44 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:7714
Document title: THE SMARTEST & SAFEST HOVERBOARD FOR SALE - GYROOR

Capture URL: https://gyroorboard.com/collections/gyroor-hoverboard-for-sale

Capture timestamp (UTC): Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:07:10 GMT Page 2 of 2

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 328-44 Filed: 07/13/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:7715
10262.

#### Reserve Loan Life Insurance Company *v.*Davis.

Decided April 16, 1919.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court—Judge Ellis., October 29, 1918. -

It was contended on the part of the insurance company that although the plaintiff did not receive the policy, it became effective and remained in force throughout the period covered by the premium paid, that there was no rescission or cancellation which would relieve the company from liability on the policy, and that the plaintiff therefore received the consideration for which the premium was paid.

*Moore & Pomeroy, Jack C. Savage,*for plaintiff in error, cited:

Park’s Ann. Code, § 2470; *N. Y. Life Ins. Co.*v. *Babcock,*104 *Ga.*67; 1 Joyce, Ins., §§ 90, 100; 3 Joyce, Ins., § 1397 *; Alston*v. *Greenwich Ins. Co.,*100 *Ga.*286; *Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.*v. *Pekor,*106 *Ga.*1 (1); *Mass. Mut. L. Ins. Co.*v. *Boswell,*20 *Ga. App.*446*572(2); *Metropolitan L. Ins. Co.*v. *Thompson,*20 *Ga. App.*706 (1-2); *Home Ins. Co.*v. *Chattahoochee Lumber Co.,*126 *Ga.*334; *Hollingsworth*v. *Germania &c. Ins. Co.,*45 *Ga.*294; *Favors*v. *Bankers Ins. Co.,*18 *Ga, App.*522.

*571Luke, J.

Davis applied to the Reserve Loan Life Insurance Company for a policy of life-insurance and paid the first premium in cash. The company issued the policy and sent it to an agent of the company, for the purpose of delivery, but, after holding it a short time, the agent declined to deliver it, and returned it to the principal office of the company, for cancellation, and it was there destroyed. Repeated demand was made for return of the premium, but it was retained by the company, and Davis sued the company for the premium. He pleaded a good cause of action, and by uneontradicted evidence proved his case as laid. The trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for him. For no error assigned did the.judge of the superior court err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.*

*572*J. A. Branch,*contra, cited:

*Supreme Council*v. *Jordan,*117 *Ga.*808; *Alabama Gold L. Ins. Co.*v. *Germany,*74 *Ga.*51.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE REGISTRANT'S UNAUDITED BALANCE AS OF AUGUST 31, 1996 AND THE UNAUDITED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS
THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,420,446
<SECURITIES>                                   394,761
<RECEIVABLES>                                  652,441
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,112,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,476,274
<PP&E>                                         975,440
<DEPRECIATION>                                 685,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,845,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          559,181
<BONDS>                                          2,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,473
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,240,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,845,784
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,067,528
<CGS>                                          863,377
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  863,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,493
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,414,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,414,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,414,599)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)
        

</TABLE>
#### SMITH v. N.C. DEPT. OF CORRECTION

No. 18P97

Case below: 124 N.C.App. 670

Notice of appeal by plaintiff (substantial constitutional question) dismissed 8 May 1997. Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
**Exhibit
      15.1**









**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**






We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
      No. 333-121231 (Form S-8) of our report dated June 30, 2005,
      with
      respect to the consolidated financial statements of “SUPERCOM” LTD.” included in
      its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2004 filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission.













Fahn,
                Kanne & Co.
              Certified
                Public Accountants (Isr.)




Tel-Aviv,
      Israel


June
      30, 2005
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Mercari Communications Group, Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Kanouff, Treasurer/Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (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 result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ John P. KanouffJohn P. KanouffTreasurer(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------------------------------------------------------------



|March 31, 2009
|--------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.



---
[No. 1669.]

#### Antonio Mesa *v.*The State.

Seduction.— Indictment for seduction, failing to allege that the female seduced was unmarried at the time of the commission of the act, charges no offense against the laws of this State.

Appeal from the District Court of Cameron. Tried below before the Hon. J. C. Bussell.

The indictment charged that on the 14th day of August, 1884, in Cameron county, Texas, the appellant “ did, by means of a promise to marry, then and there seduce one Cirilda Guerra, then and there a female under the age of twenty-five years,” etc. Being convicted, the appellant’s punishment was affixed at a term of three years in the penitentiary.

Mo brief for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

It is not a penal offense to seduce a *married*female under the age of twenty-five years. To constitute the offense of seduction, the female must, at the time of the commission of the act, be unmarried. (Penal Code, art. 814.) In this case the indictraent does not allege that the female seduced was unmarried, and hence it does not allege any offense against the law of this State. Because of this fundamental defect in the indictment, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and*dismissed.

[Opinion delivered January 10, 1885.]
10093.

#### Ryals v. The State.

Decided November 16, 1918.

Harwell, J.

1. “Any statement or conduct of a person, indicating a consciousness of guilt, where such person is, at the time or thereafter, charged with or suspected of crime, is admissible against him upon his trial for committing it.” *Eixon*v. *State,*130 *Ga.*479, 482 (62 S. E. 14),’ and cases therein cited.' Under this ruling the 4th and 5th special grounds of the motion for a new trial, complaining of the admission of certain testimony regarding incriminating statements made by the defendant, are without merit.

2. There was some evidence to support the verdict finding the defendant guilty of manufacturing’ liquor; and, it having the approval of the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth, J., and Broyles, P. J., concur.*

*87Indictment for- manufacturing intoxicating liquor; from Decatur superior court—Judge Harrell. August 17, 1918.

*W. V. Custer,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. C. Bell, solicitor-general, F..A. Hooper,*contra.