alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11619.

#### Hammontree *v.*The State.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where in an indictment for burglary the ownership of the place alleged to have been burglarized is laid in a name which imports a corporation, “the presumption is that it is a corporation, and, in the absence of affirmative proof by the accused that no such corporation existed, and where there is no allegation in the indictment that it was a corporation, it is not necessary for the State to prove the fact of incorporation. And where a final judgment has been rendered, a judgment is not void, nor voidable, for the mere want of such proof. ” *Vaughn*v. *State, 17 Ga. App.*268 (1) (86 S. E. 461). Under this ruling the first special ground of the motion for a new tidal is without merit.

2. The defendant’s conviction was amply authorized by the evidence, *545exclusive of the testimony of his accomplice. The court, therefore, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, did not err in failing to instruct the jury upon the law applicable to the weight to be given the testimony of an accomplice.

Decided May 15, 1920.

Indictment for burglary; from Whitfield superior court —Judge Tarver. May 15, 1920.

*George G. Glenn,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph M. Lang, solicitor-general,*contra.

3. In the light of the facts of the ease and of the charge as a whole, there is no substantial merit in any of the other assignments of error upon the charge of the court.

4 Hie verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Radioactive Materials Shipping Form 

rev. 01/06/2009

Your Name : Your Phone Ext.: To: 

[Include the full name and address you want the item(s) shipped to, along with a phone number or email address.]

Content: 

[List everything you are shipping as well as quantity. Be specific - we must have the sample name as well as the formula.]

Chemical Name Quantity MSDS? Hazardous? If no MSDS, indicate type of hazard.

Other Materials 

Required Delivery Date:

Suggested Shipping Method: User Account Number:

Note: Hazardous materials can only be shipped by FedEx.

Please attach the MSDS and /or Health Physics release. 

[A Health Physics release is required for any sample or piece of equipment that has been exposed to neutrons .]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7574** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CRAIG NEILDONDO SMALLS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever, III , Chief District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00337

- D

- 1 ; 5:14

- cv - 00249

- D )

Submitted : April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Craig Neildondo Smalls , Appellant Pro Se. Denise Walker , Seth Morgan Wood , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opini ons are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Craig Neildondo Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. C ockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smalls has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument bec ause the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**Certification of**

**Chief Executive Officer**

**of Granite Broadcasting Corporation**

 

This certification is providedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies thequarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended September30, 2002 of Granite Broadcasting Corporation (the “Issuer”).

 

I, W. Don Cornwell, the ChiefExecutive Officer of Issuer certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(i)                                     theForm 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii)                                  theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

 

 
| Dated:  November 14, 2002. |   |                    |
|---------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                            | /s/    | W. DON CORNWELL         |   |
|                            |   | W. Don Cornwell         |
|                            |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                                 |        |                         |  |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT 12/31/99, THE CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT AND
THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED 12/31/99
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,002,074
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    863,103
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         887,036
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       296,530
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,048,743
<COMMON>                                       557,901
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        2,312
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            448,603
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,008,816
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           65,000
<PREFERRED>                                     57,654
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           617,061
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   58,044
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,451
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   911
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,239,806
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,048,743
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,342,309
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            44,063
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,110,431
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,154,494
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        187,815
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                              11,029
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 198,844
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        48,498
<NET-INCOME>                                   150,346
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      3,690
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  146,656
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        88,155
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       49,881
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         660,183
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33


</TABLE>
10984.

#### Armstrong *et al. v.*Harper *et al.*

Decided March 11, 1920.

Complaint; from city court of Reidsville — Judge Cowart. September 2, 1919.

*W. T. Burkhalter,*for plaintiffs.

*A. S. Way,*for defendants.

Smith, J.

1. A dormant judgment is a chose in action. Where an administrator .in his representative capacity obtained a judgment against several defendants, the right to revive the judgment after it became dormant was in the administrator, and not in the heirs at law. See *Hill*v. *Maffett,*3 *Ga. App.*89 (59 S. E. 325) ; *Moughon*v. *Masterson,*140 *Ga.*699, 704 (79 S. E. 561).

2. Under the above ruling the court did not err in rejecting the amendment which sought to change the petition so that the suit should proceed in the name of the plaintiff as administratrix of the estate of J. W. Olliff, deceased, for the use of herself as one of the “ sole heirs at law,” and as guardian of her ward, who was the other of the *"*sole heirs ” of the estate.

3. The case was properly dismissed on general demurrer; and this is true although only one of the defendants filed a demurrer. *Funderburk*v. *Smith,*74 *Ga.*515.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Johnson, Appellant.

(No. 2093

Decided August 14, 1950.)

*Mr. Mathias II. Heck,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Lloyd II. O’Hara,*for appellee.

*Mr. Herbert M. Eikenbary,*for appellant.

Wiseman, J.

This case is now before this court on motion of defendant for an order suspending the execution of sentence and admitting the defendant to bail “during the pendency of his appeal unto the Supreme Court of Ohio, he having duly filed notice of said appeal together with the requisite motions to perfect said appeal in said 'tribunal. ’ ’

It has been held that the Court of Appeals has discretionary authority to suspend sentence pending appeal in that court, but no original authority to fix bail on appeal after conviction. *State*v. *Cook,*7 Ohio App., 1, 44 N. E. (2d), 474; *State*v. *McGee,*27 Ohio Law Abs., 578, 31 N. E. (2d), 171. Those cases were decided before the enactment of Section 13459-8(a), General Code, which provides as follows:

“The Court of Common Pleas, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court of Ohio, or any judge thereof, to which court an appeal is taken from an inferior tribunal, *284shall have the same power and authority to suspend the execution of sentence during the pendency of such appeal and admit the defendant to bail as is provided for by law in respect to said inferior tribunal.”

Under this section the Court of Appeals, or a judge thereof, is given power and authority to suspend the execution of the sentence and admit the defendant to bail “during the pendency of such appeal.” The words, “during the pendency of such appeal,” refer to the pendency in the same court in which the suspension of sentence and admission to bail are sought. The appeal must be pending, otherwise the court lacks power and authority to suspend the sentence or admit to bail.

Is the appeal pending in this court? The defendant was duly tried, convicted and sentenced in the Common Pleas Court for the crime of assault with intent to commit rape. An appeal was taken to this court which, on June 21, 1950, affirmed the judgment. A mandate was issued to the Common Pleas Court for execution of judgment. Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court has been duly filed.

After a case is remanded to the trial court, the reviewing court is without jurisdiction to entertain a motion to suspend the sentence and admit the defendant to bail. The appeal is no longer pending in the reviewing court. *New York Central Rd. Co.*v. *Francis,*109 Ohio St., 481, 143 N. E., 187; *C. E. McCune Co.*v. *Warndorf,*55 Ohio App., 279, 283, 9 N. E. (2d), 709; *McDowell*v. *State,*33 Ohio App., 319, 322, 169 N. E., 463. See, also, 2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 1772, Section 950. The rights of the defendant under such circumstances are controlled by Sections 13453-2 and 13459-8, General Code. The motion is overruled.

*Motion overruled.*

Miller, P. J., and Hornbeck, J., concur.
Exhibit 32

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States
Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Qwest Corporation ("Qwest"), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report
of Qwest on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Qwest. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Qwest and will be retained by Qwest and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|                         |  |     |  |                                                                                                 
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 18, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ EDWARD A. MUELLER Edward A. Mueller
Chief Executive Officer                                 
|Dated: February 18, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ JOSEPH J. EUTENEUER Joseph J. Euteneuer
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4816 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4816

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To permit the Librarian of Congress to hire Library of Congress Police 
                               employees.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4816

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To permit the Librarian of Congress to hire Library of Congress Police 
                               employees.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS TO HIRE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
              POLICE EMPLOYEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1006 of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2004 (2 U.S.C. 1901 note), is amended--
            (1) in the heading, by striking ``Training, Detailing, and 
        Hiring'' and inserting ``Training and Detailing'';
            (2) by striking ``(a)'' and the heading of subsection (a);
            (3) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating paragraphs 
        (1) and (2) of subsection (a) as subsections (a) and (b); and
            (4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by striking 
        ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2004.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 20, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
10199, 10200.

#### Burns, survivor, *v. Long et al.,*admr’s; and *vice versa.*

Decided August 7, 1919.

Complaint; from Carroll superior court—-Judge Terrell. September 30, 1918.

*S. Holderness, Leon Hood,*for plaintiff in error.

*Buford Boyhin, S. O. Boylcin, M. B. Robinson,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

No error requiring the grant of a new trial was committed in any of the rulings on the rejection of evidence as complained of in the amendment to the motion for new trial, in grounds 1, 2, and 3; or in failing to instruct as complained of in ground 4; or in charging the jury as complained of in ground 5. On questions of fact the jurors are the final arbiters. The trial judge approved their finding in this case, and this court will not interfere.

*Judgment affirmed, on main bill of emcep lions; eross-bill dismissed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., coneur.*
DISCLAIMER FOR NIST/ITL CSD CONFORMANCE TEST ARCHITECTURES 

The software was developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of 

the Federal Government. Pursuant to Title 15 United States Code Section 105, works of NIST are not 

subject to copyright protection in the United States and are considered to be in the public domain. Thus, 

the software may be freely reproduced and used. Please explicitly acknowledge the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology as the source of the software. 

This software is released by NIST as a service and is expressly provided "AS IS." NIST MAKES NO 

WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE 

IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT AND DATA ACCURACY. NIST DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE OPERATION 

OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERRORFREE, OR THAT ANY DEFECTS WILL BE 

CORRECTED. 

NIST does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use of the software or the results 

thereof, including but not limited to the correctness, accuracy, reliability or usefulness of the software. 

By using this software or by incorporating this software into another product, you agree to hold 

harmless the United Sates Government for any and all damages or liabilities that arise out of such use. 

Certain trade names and company products are mentioned in the text or identified. In no case does such 

identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, nor does it imply that the products are necessarily the best available for the purpose. With 

the exception of material marked as copyrighted, information presented in this document is considered 

public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is 

requested.
On appeal, petitioners do not challenge the immigration judge’s denial of their request for voluntary withholding

1

of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the INA and for withholding under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)).

 The immigration judge focused exclusively upon the claims advanced by Mrs. Krivonos because she alone

2

contends that she suffered persecution based upon political activity. Her husband and daughter’s applications are

derivative of her claims.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0151n.06

Filed: February 26, 2007

No. 06-3206

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ELENA N. KRIVONOS; VLADIMIR I. KRIVONOS;

DARIA B. KRIVONOS,

Petitioners,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW

OF A DECISION OF THE

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION

APPEALS

 MEMORANDUM

 OPINION

Before: NORRIS, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Elena Krivonos, her husband Vladimir, and daughter Daria, who are

citizens of Russia, appeal the denial bythe Board of Immigration Appeals of their petition for asylum

filed pursuant to § 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1158. The 1

immigration judge concluded that, even if he credited Mrs. Krivonos’ testimony, she had failed to 2

establish either that she suffered past persecution based upon her political activities or had a well-
No. 06-3206

Krivonos v. Gonzales

- 2 -

founded fear of future persecution (or torture) upon repatriation to Russia. The BIA affirmed the

denial of relief. 

As with many individuals who come before us seeking permanent residency in the United

States, we are sympathetic to the situation of the Krivonos family and their desire to make a new life

in this country. Accordingly, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the administrative record

below with great care. We conclude that petitioners have not made the requisite showing to justify

relief on any of the theories that they have advanced. Because the reasons for our decision were

adequately articulated by the immigration judge in his oral decision dated August 25, 2004, and by

the BIA in its January 18, 2006 order adopting and affirming that decision, a detailed opinion by this

court would serve no useful purpose.

The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is affirmed.
V 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4891

For the relief of Maria Cristina Degrassi. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2004

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Maria Cristina Degrassi.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MARIA 

4 CRISTINA DEGRASSI. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Maria Cristina Degrassi shall be eligible for issuance 

8 of immigrant visas or for adjustment of status to that of 

9 aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon fil10 ing an application for issuance of immigrant visas under 

11 section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to 

12 lawful permanent resident. 
2

•HR 4891 IH 

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Maria Cristina 

2 Degrassi enters the United States before the filing dead3 line specified in subsection (c), the alien shall be consid4 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 

5 otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

6 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 as of the date of enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of immigrant visas or the application 

11 for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.—

14 Upon the granting of immigrant visas or permanent resi15 dence to Maria Cristina Degrassi, the Secretary of State 

16 shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appro17 priate number, during the current or next following fiscal 

18 year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

19 available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

20 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

21 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 

22 that are made available to natives of the country of the 

23 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act.

Æ