alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE STATE v. CRABTREE, Appellant.

Division Two,

May 10, 1904.

MANSLAUGHTER: Evidence. Evidence *held*sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the fourth degree.

Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court.— *Eon. J. L. Fort,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Ely é Kelso*for appellant.

*Edward C. Grow,*Attorney-General, and *G. D. Corum*for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

On the fourteenth day of May, 1901, the prosecuting attorney of Dunklin county, Missouri, filed an information against the defendant for murder in the first degree. *The information was duly sworn to by the prosecuting attorney.*The defendant waived formal arraignment and entered his plea of not *355guilty, and upon a trial liad on the eighteenth day of November, 1902, he was convicted of manslaughter in the fourth degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

The facts, briefly, are 'that during the month of December, 1900, several persons who lived in Dunklin county started on a hunting expedition. Among those in the crowd were the defendant and the deceased. "When the party had reached Hickory landing, on little creek, they began to shoot at a target with their pistols. After this had continued for some time, Crabtree, the defendant, and Chandler, the deceased, made a wager of six dollars that the defendant could not hit a hat at a distance of one hundred 3rards with a shotgun. The money was placed in the hands of a stakeholder, the shot was made, and a dispute arose as to whether the defendant had missed his aim. But Chandler, the deceased, allowed the stakeholder to pay the money over to the defendant, and they stood facing each other, Chandler with his shotgun in his hand, and Crabtree with his right hand in his hip pocket. Neither seemed to be excited and both conversed in an undertone. Chandler started to raise his gun, one barrel of which was cocked. The defendant took hold of the gun and shoved it aside and immediately drew his pistol and shot Chandler in the left temple, from the effects of which he instantly died.

The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he shot the deceased in order to save his own life. But the evidence tends to show that he was not in any immediate danger or that the defendant had any reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary for him to shoot the deceased, in order to protect himself.

The court instructed the jury on murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the fourth degree, self-defense, reasonable doubt and the weight to be given to the testimony of the defendant.

The information was sufficient to charge murder in *356the first degree, and it is not deemed necessary to re-' produce it.

No motion in arrest was filed, and the defendant is not represented in this court by counsel, and hence no point is made on the sufficiency of the record proper. The instructions cover every aspect of the law arising from the facts developed on the trial and such as have often been approved by this court.

We discover no error in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

*Burgess*and Fox, *JJ.,*concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-14-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           175,199
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                          27
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 207,272
<CASH>                                           9,529
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,500,983
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                194,239
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                749
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,500,983
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              1,656
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   2,820
<BENEFITS>                                       1,599
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                        176
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             2,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    420
<INCOME-TAX>                                       147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                273
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       273
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        


</TABLE>
Agreement to terminate and commute the 2005-2006 Quota Share Reinsurance Contract


     

    Exhibit
      10.1

     

    October
      31, 2005      

    


    Mr.
      Robert Coords

    Executive
      Vice President

    AIG
      Re

    70
      Pine
      Street, 40th
      Floor

    New
      York,
      NY 10270

    


    
      	 	
              Re:

            	
              Agreement
                to terminate and commute the Quota Share Reinsurance Contract by
                and among
                National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA and Coast
                National
                Insurance Company, Security National Insurance Company, Bristol West
                Insurance Company and Bristol West Casualty Insurance
                Company 

            


    

     

    Dear
      Bob:

    


    Reference
      is made to the Quota Share Reinsurance Contract effective as of January 1,
      2005,
      by and among National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
      (hereinafter referred to as the “Subscribing Reinsurer”) and Coast National
      Insurance Company, Security National Insurance Company, Bristol West Insurance
      Company and Bristol West Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter together
      referred to as the “Subscribing Company”) as amended to the date hereof (the
“Quota Share Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall
      have the same meanings herein as set forth in the Quota Share
      Agreement.

    


    Provided
      the parties to the Quota Share Agreement have executed a commutation agreement,
      and all conditions to effectiveness set forth therein have been satisfied on
      or
      before January 7, 2006, the Subscribing Reinsurer and the Subscribing Company
      hereby mutually agree to terminate the Quota Share Agreement on a cut-off basis
      effective January 1, 2006, and the Subscribing Reinsurer hereby agrees to pay
      to
      the Subscribing Company the Profit Commission described in Article IX of the
      Quota Share Agreement not later than January 31, 2006.

    


    The
      execution, delivery and performance of this letter agreement shall not, except
      as expressly provided herein, constitute a waiver of any provision of, or
      operate as a wavier of any right, power or remedy of the Subscribing Company
      under the Quota Share Agreement.

    


    On
      behalf of the Subscribing Company, 

    Coast
      National Insurance Company, 

    Security
      National Insurance Company, 

    Bristol
      West Insurance Company, 

    Bristol
      West Casualty Insurance Company 

    


     /s/
      CRAIG EISENACHER

    Name:
      Craig Eisenacher

    Title:
      Treasurer

     

    Acknowledged
      and Agreed:

    


    On
      behalf of the Subscribing Reinsurer, 

    National
      Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.

    


    /s/
      ROBERT J COORDS

    Name:
      Robert J. Coords

    Title:
      Attorney - In - Fact
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         523,389
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       7,346,483
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,010,990)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,993,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      2,161,204
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,993,903
<SALES>                                      1,376,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,439,428
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,526,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             198,948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (285,886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (285,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-22-0000095

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JONNAH N.M. SMITH, also known as JONNAH SMITH,

Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 2FFC-21-0000378)

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Chan, JJ.) Upon consideration of the Stipulation for Dismissal of Appeal, filed on November 21, 2022, by Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai i, it appears that: (1) the appeal was docketed on April 7, 2022; (2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b); and (3) the stipulation is dated and signed by counsel for all parties appearing in the appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation for Dismissal of Appeal is approved, and the appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, December 16, 2022. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan Associate Judge

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-22-0000095 16-DEC-2022 07:55 AM Dkt. 46 OAWST
<PAGE>   1
                                   EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


<PAGE>   2


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



TCA Employee Benefits Committee
Tyler, Texas

     We hereby consent to the use of our report dated September 24, 1997 (the
"Auditors' Report"), with respect to the financial statements of the TCA Cable
401(k) Plan for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 in this Annual Report on
Form 11-K of TCA Cable TV, Inc. (the "Company"), and to the incorporation by
reference of the Auditor's Report and related financial statements in the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8 to be filed on or about the date
hereof, and in any other Registration Statement, on Form S-8 or otherwise, or
any other filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission made by the Company
or to be made thereby on or after the date hereof.


                                                    /s/ HENRY & PETERS, P.C.

Tyler, Texas
March 23, 1998
----

----

| 1.   |  DEFINITIONS. As used in this      Agreement and unless otherwise expressly indicated, or unless the context      clearly requires otherwise: |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.   |  AGREEMENT      TO REPAY DRAWINGS; PURCHASE OFBONDS. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|

| By: |          /s/   Jaime MorganStubbe |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------|

| By: |  /s/   Fernando      Aguiar |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------|

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3876

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the 

State of Florida. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2004

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, 

Mr. BOYD, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, and 

Mr. DEUTSCH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 

to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from operating in the State of Florida.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE 

4 COMPARATIVE COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) 

5 PROGRAM IN FLORIDA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1860C–1(b) of the Social 

7 Security Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Pre-
2

•HR 3876 IH 

1 scription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 

2 2003 (Public Law 108–173), is amended by adding at the 

3 end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) NO CCA AREAS WITHIN FLORIDA.—A CCA 

5 area shall not include an MSA any portion of which 

6 is within the State of Florida.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall take effect as if included in the enact9 ment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, 

10 and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108–173).

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Build Your Own Mars Helicopter Model","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"WTGrVbSyXz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/build-your-own-mars-helicopter-model\/\">Build Your Own Mars Helicopter Model<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/build-your-own-mars-helicopter-model\/embed\/#?secret=WTGrVbSyXz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Build Your Own Mars Helicopter Model” — NASA\" data-secret=\"WTGrVbSyXz\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/helicopter_still_image.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Exhibit
23.2







CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM






We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-54479 on Form S-8 of our report dated April 28, 2008, relating to the 2007
financial statements of MAXXAM Inc. (which report includes an explanatory
paragraph regarding the ability of MAXXAM Inc. and subsidiaries to continue as a
going concern) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of MAXXAM Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2008.




Deloitte
& Touche LLP




Houston,
Texas




March 30,
2009
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 NexGen Biofuels Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Ram
Ajjarapu, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, following due inquiry, I believe that:

     (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.

     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.

                                                         NEXGEN BIOFUELS LTD.

May 13, 2008
                                                         By: /s/ J. Ram Ajjarapu
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         J. RAM AJJARAPU
                                                         CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
```
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4046

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

555 West 180th Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Sergeant 

Riayan A. Tejada Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2004

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 555 West 180th Street in New York, New 

York, as the ‘‘Sergeant Riayan A. Tejada Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT RIAYAN A. TEJADA POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 555 West 180th Street in New 

6 York, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Sergeant Riayan A. Tejada Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2

•HR 4046 IH 

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the Sergeant Riayan A. 

3 Tejada Post Office.

Æ
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CHRISTINE SCHULTE
, Appellant,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1959

[ February 2, 2022 ]

Non

- final a ppeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Glenn D. Kelley , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502015CA011580

.

Margery E. Golant of Margery E. Golant, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

W e reverse an order denying a motion to quash service of process

.

The trial court made the factual finding that appellant was not properly served, but ruled that appellant had waived any personal jurisdictional challenge by her participation in the lawsuit. Nothing appellant filed in the lawsuit amounted to a request fo r affirmative relief. See Modway, Inc.

v. OJ Com

. , LLC

, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2532 , 2021 WL 5499826, at * 2 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 24, 2021) (stating that “affirmative relief” is “relief for which a defendant might maintain an action independently of plaintiff ’ s claim and on which he might proceed to recovery, although plaintiff abandoned

his cause of action or failed to establish it” ) (citation omitted) ; accord

Heineken v. Heineken , 683 So. 2d 194, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). The trial

court relied on T hane v. Rose Acceptance, Inc.

, 315 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) , but we conclude that Thane is distinguishable. Thane involved a request to reschedule, which acknowledges jurisdiction, unlike appellant’s motion in this case.

Reversed

.2 G ROSS
, C IKLIN and L EVINE , JJ.

, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.