alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11437.

#### ADAMS *v.*THE STATE.

Decided June 15, 1920.

Relationship which would disqualify a juror was not so clearly established in this case as to authorize this court to hold that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, in which such relationship was alleged.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Coffee superior court — Judge Summerall. February 28, 1920.

*C. A. Ward, R. B. Chastain, Casey Thigpen,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. B. Spence, solicitor-general, F. Willis Dart,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

The sole assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is to the overruling of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, which was based upon the alleged relationship, within the prohibited degree, of one of the jurors to the deceased (whom the defendant was convicted of slaying), and another of the jurors to a named person who had contributed to a fund to employ counsel to assist in the prosecution of the defendant. Under the facts of the case, this court can not determine that, as a matter of law, the alleged relationship was so clearly established that the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. See, in this connection, *Davis*v. *State,*150 *Ga.*19 (102 S. E. 445); 24 *Ga. App.*776 (102 S. E. 378).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit
        4.2

      


      


      


      


      


      December
        5, 2005

      


      [Name
        and
        Address]

      


      Dear
        Sirs:

      


      Re: Generex
        Biotechnology Corporation

      -
        Amendment to Jun 17 05 Additional Investment Right

      


      We
        make
        reference to the additional investment right issued by Generex Biotechnology
        Corporation (the “Company”)
        to
        _______ (“Holder”) on June 17, 2005 pursuant to which the Company, inter
        alia,
        granted
        to Holder the right to purchase a $500,000 principal amount debenture (the
        “AIR”).

      


      The
        Initial Exercise Date (as that term is defined in the AIR) of the AIR is
        expressed therein as the 181st
        day
        after the date thereof. The Company hereby confirms that, in consideration
        of
        the exercise of the AIR by Holder and the delivery to the Company of a Notice
        of
        Exercise in respect thereof on or before the close of business on December
        5,
        2005, the Company has agreed to abridge the Initial Exercise Date and to
        honor
        the aforementioned Notice of Exercise.

      


      Yours
        truly,

      


      Generex
        Biotechnology Corporation

      


      


      ______________________

      


      Mark
        A.
        Fletcher

      Executive
        Vice-President, General Counsel

      maf:hs
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41025

Summary Calendar

EDGAR S. ARROYO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

R. RODRIGUEZ; R. BLEDSOE,

Officer; K. GUIDRY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(G-96-CV-688)

February 26, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edgar S. Arroyo, a Texas prisoner, challenges the dismissal of his pro se, in

forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit in which he alleges that prison

disciplinary proceedings violated his due process rights and unlawfully were1 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

2 Heck , 114 S.Ct. at 2372.

3 60 F.3d 1161 (5th Cir. 1995), cert

. denied , 116 S.Ct. 800 (1996).

2 instigated against him in retaliation for a complaint he filed against a prison guard.

Arroyo contends that the district court erred in dismissing, under the teachings of

Heck v. Humphrey

, 1 the entirety of his lawsuit for failure to demonstrate favorable

termination of the underlying disciplinary proceedings.

Arroyo’s due process claim is not actionable because the conviction has not

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by the executive, invalidated by other

state means, or called into question by the issuance of a feder a l habeas writ. 2

Dismissal of the due process claim therefore was appropriate and is affirmed.

To the extent that the district court dismissed Arroyo’s retaliation claim

unde r H eck

, however, the order appealed constitutes an abuse of discretion. We

recently addressed this issue in Woods v. Smith

. 3 Accordingly, that portion of the

district court’s order must be and the same is vacated and remanded for further

proceedings.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Exhibit 4.19

 

	

    	

    


 

May 12, 2015

 

VIA SEDAR — PROJECT #0345236

 

Alberta Securities Commission (as Principal Regulator under National Policy 11-202)

Ontario Securities Commission

 

Dear Sirs:

 

RE:                          TransCanada Trust (the “Issuer”) and TransCanada PipeLines Limited (“TCPL”)

Re:                             Short Form Base PREP Prospectus dated May 12, 2015


 



We refer to the short form base PREP prospectus of the Issuer dated May 12, 2015 (the “Prospectus”) relating to the initial public offering by the Issuer of unsecured, subordinated Trust Notes — Series 2015-A due 2075, guaranteed on a subordinated basis by TCPL.

 

We hereby consent to the references to our firm name in the Prospectus on the cover page and under the headings “Interests of Experts” and “Documents Filed as Part of the Registration Statement” and to the reference to our firm name and the use of our opinion under the headings “Legal Matters” and “Enforcement of Civil Liabilities”.

 

We confirm that we have read the Prospectus and that we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained therein that are derived from our opinion referred to therein or that are within our knowledge as a result of the services we have performed in connection with such opinion.

 

	
 
    	
Yours truly,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
(signed) “Blake,   Cassels & Graydon LLP”
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4727

To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate the market 

access program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2004

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

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to eliminate 

the market access program.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Market Access Pro5 gram Elimination Act.’’

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Agricultural Trade Act of 

8 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) is amended by striking sec9 tion 203 (7 U.S.C. 5623). 
2

•HR 4727 IH 

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) Section 

2 282(f)(2) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 

3 U.S.C. 1638a(f)(2)) is amended—

4 (A) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘or’’ 

5 after ‘‘beef cuts;’’; 

6 (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and 

7 inserting a period; and 

8 (C) by striking subparagraph (E). 

9 (2) The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 

10 5601 et seq.) is amended—

11 (A) in section 211 (7 U.S.C. 5641), by striking 

12 subsection (c); and 

13 (B) in section 402(a)(1) (7 U.S.C. 5662(a)(1)), 

14 by striking ‘‘203,’’.

Æ
Greetings!

I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the Commission’s thoughtful questions. Having only 

become aware of this RFC on the day of its closing, I can only offer very brief comments.

The American agriculture industry is becoming increasingly reliant on GPS, IoT devices, and cyberphysical systems to create the nations’ food supply. So far, most discussion of “protecting agriculture” 

has focused on bioterrorism. However, as more farmers adopt digital agriculture technologies, security 

of these systems is becoming critically important. There are some actors who would specifically like to 

target industrial-scale agriculture, and if they could create digital disruption at planting or harvest time, 

they would doubtlessly cause some crop losses. Perhaps these wouldn’t be large losses at first, but the 

novelty of them would surely gain some attention for these attacks. Escalation theory suggests other 

attacks would follow and ag attacks would become part of the playbook of any country at war with the 

US (militarily or otherwise), or anyone who believed that attacking agriculture would help the 

environment.

Three places to examine these issues:

AgGateway, an agriculture industry consortium focused on enabling “eAgriculture” by promoting, 

improving, and adopting common standards. 

NIST, which already has communities of practice for critical infrastructure participants (e.g. the maritime 

sector, energy sector). NIST’s creation and evangelization of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework for 

Critical Infrastructure would be a valuable tool for organizing ag industry discussions of cybersecurity 

topics.

Iowa State University is one of only seven NSA-certified centers of academic excellence in information 

assurance education, and has one of the best agronomy departments in the world. There is some energy 

and interest around combining these strengths to help address emerging cybersecurity issues in 

agriculture.

I will create a website at http://agdatasecurity.com to post a more thorough analysis.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this very important issue.

Rachel M. Garrett

Chair, AgGateway Data Privacy & Security Committee
ISU student, Agronomy & Computer Engineering

(515) 979-5409

rgarrett@iastate.edu

1218 Delaware Ave #4

Ames, IA 50014
Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Sean M. Cary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc.

Date: December 6, 2004
By:    /s/ Sean M. Cary
Name: Sean M. Cary
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Table of Contents

Teaching and Learning The Metric System

Unit 1

- Suggested Teaching Sequence

- Objectives

- Rules of Notation

- Metric Units, Symbols, and Referents

- Metric Prefixes

- Linear Measurement Activities

- Area Measurement Activities

- Volume Measurement Activities

- Mass (Weight) Measurement Activities

- Temperature Measurement Activities

1

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

5 

7 

9 

11

Unit 2

- Objectives

- Suggested Teaching Sequence

- Metrics in this Occupation

- Metric Units For Recreation and Tourism

- Trying Out Metric Units

- Measuring With Metrics

12

12

12

12

13

14

15

Unit 3

- Objective

- Suggested Teaching Sequence

- Metric-Metric Equivalents

- Changing Units at Work

16

16

16

16

18

Unit 4

- Objective

- Suggested Teaching Sequence

- Selecting and Using Metric Instruments, Tools and Devices

- Which Tools for the Job?

- Measuring Up in Recreation and Tourism

19

19

19

19

20

20

Unit 5

- Objective

- Suggested Teaching Sequence

- Metric-Customary Equivalents

- Visual Map

- Any Way You Want It

21

21

21

21

22

23

Testing Metric Abilities 24

Answers to Exercises and Test 25

Temperature 26

Tools and Devices List

References
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRACY G. ALLEN, AIS # 129732, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0838-CG-M

DR. ROBERT BARNES, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00838-CG-M Document 4 Filed 03/01/10 Page 1 of 1
Order entered September 7 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 00124 - CR No. 05 - 18 - 0012 5 - CR CHRISTON DIOR CONNER , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F17 - 56395 - M & F17 - 56396 - M



### O RDER

The one

- volume reporter’s record, originally due April 3, 2018, was filed September 6, 2018. In light of this, we VACATE our Septe mber 5 th order to the extent it orders Belinda Baraka not to sit. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Ernest White, Presiding Judge, 194th Judicial District Court; Belinda Baraka, official court reporter, 194th Judicial Distri ct Court; to the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### City of Cincinnati, Appellee, *v.*Lindsay, Appellant.

(No. 7257

Decided May 15, 1950.)

*Mr. Henry M. Bruestle, Mr. Robert J. Paul*and *Mr. Don Burkholder,*for appellee.

*Mr. Melvin Schaengold,*for appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of conviction in the Municipal Court of Cincinnati.

The appellant advances two principal assignments of error: (1) The judgment is against the weight of the evidence, and (2) the ordinance under which the defendant was convicted is unconstitutional.

As to the first assignment of error, the court finds no justification for the claim that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.

The record discloses that the second assignment of error involves a question for the first time raised in this court, to wit, the constitutionality of the ordinance. The trial court, the Court of Common Pleas and this court had jurisdiction to determine such constitutionality. A reviewing court is not required to determine such constitutionality where the defendant has not raised such affirmative defense in the trial and appellate courts. 2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 299, 869, Sections 150, 502. See, also, *Village of Clarington*v. *Althar,*122 Ohio St., 608, 174 N. E., 251; *Cuthbertson*v. *State,*106 Ohio St., 658, 140 N. E., 941.

It is difficult to see how this court could reverse a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, which court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court, for er*118rors in ruling upon a 'question which was never presented to either court. The unconstitutionality of a statute is an affirmative defense, and must be asserted in order to be considered even in a criminal case.

It is claimed also that Section 13448-4, General Code, requires a reversal. Again, the record shows that the rights, if any, of the defendant under such statute were never presented to the trial court or the Court of Common Pleas.

Under such circumstances, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, affirming the judgment of the Municipal Court, is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Ross, P. J., Hildebrant and Matthews, JJ., concur.
Order entered September 7, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00124-CR

No. 05-18-00125-CR

CHRISTON DIOR CONNER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-56395-M & F17-56396-M

ORDER

The one-volume reporter’s record, originally due April 3, 2018, was filed September 6, 

2018. In light of this, we VACATE our September 5th order to the extent it orders Belinda 

Baraka not to sit.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Ernest White, 

Presiding Judge, 194th Judicial District Court; Belinda Baraka, official court reporter, 194th 

Judicial District Court; to the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29194]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Renewal

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Charter of the Advisory Committee on 
Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that renewal 
of the charter for the ACRS until December 4, 2016, is in the public 
interest in connection with the statutory responsibilities assigned to 
the ACRS. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew L. Bates, Office of the 
Secretary, NRC, Washington, DC 20555; by telephone: (301) 415-1963, or 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#56171a141618041578111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d5c515f5d534f5e335a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 
was established by Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, 
as amended. Its purpose is to provide advice to the Commission with 
regard to the hazards of proposed or existing reactor facilities, to 
review each application for a construction permit or operating license 
for certain facilities specified in the AEA, and such other duties as 
the Commission may request. The AEA as amended by PL 100-456 also 
specifies that the Defense Nuclear Safety Board may obtain the advice 
and recommendations of the ACRS.
    Membership on the Committee includes individuals experienced in 
reactor operations, management; probabilistic risk assessment; analysis 
of reactor accident phenomena; design of nuclear power plant 
structures, systems and components; materials science; and mechanical, 
civil, and electrical engineering.

    Dated: December 8, 2014.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29194 Filed 12-17-14; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73602-73603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Neurological Sciences Training Initial Review 
Group; NST-1 Subcommittee.
    Date: February 9-10, 2015.

[[Page 73603]]

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: One Washington Circle One Washington Circle NW., 
Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact Person: Raul A. Saavedra, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, 
NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 
3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-9223, 
[email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Initial Review Group; Neurological Sciences and Disorders 
A.
    Date: March 2-3, 2015.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Fairmont Olympic Hotel, 411 University Street, 
Seattle, WA 98101.
    Contact Person: Natalia Strunnikova, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, 
NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 
3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-402-0288, 
[email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 5, 2014.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-29021 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
11155.

#### Lewis *v.*The State.

Decided March 2, 1920.

Conviction of manufacture of intoxicating liquor; from Haralson superior court — Judge Irwin. October 7, 1919.

*Griffith & Matthews,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. A ground of the motion for a new trial complains of the admission of evidence relative to whisky found in a house not identified in any way in this ground, and there described only as “the house.” To ascertain what house is referred to it would be necessary to look to • the brief of evidence, and this court is ’ not required to do this. “Under repeated decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court, each special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and when so incomplete as to require a reference to the brief of the evidence, or to some other portion of the record, in order .to determine what was the alleged error and whether such error was material, the ground will not be considered by the reviewing court.” *McCall*v. *State,*23 *Ca. App.*770 (1) (99 S. E. 471).

2. The court did not err in refusing to rule out the evidence of which complaint is made in the 2d ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial.

3. .When considered in connection with the remainder of the charge of the court, there is no' error in the portion of which complaint is made in ground 4 of the motion for new trial.

4. Failure to give in charge to the jury the “ indeterminate sentence 55 law (Ga. L. 1919, p. 387) could not have been harmful to the accused, for the judge charged the jury, “If you find him guilty you can go further and say, ‘ We recommend him to the mercy of the court,5 which would mean a misdemeanor punishment,” and the jury did so recommend.

5. The evidence authorized the verdict, which has the approval of the presiding judge; no error of law appears, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*