alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11719.

#### LOGAN *v.*THE STATE.

Decided November 9, 1920.

As to the law relating to dying declarations, the charge of the court was sufficiently full, in the absence of a request for additional instructions on that subject.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Butts superior court — Judge Searcy. July 17, 1920.

*J. T. Moore, Greene F. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general, W. E. Watkins,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. Plaintiff in error was tried for murder, and there was a verdict of voluntary manslaughter. There was evidence of dying declarations. To the charge given relating to these declarations there were no exceptions filed, but complaint was made that the court erred in failing to charge more fully in reference thereto, the exceptions being based on the ruling in *Denton*v. *State,*6 *Ga. App. 3*(63 S.E. 1132). That case is easily differentiated from the one now under consideration. There is nothing in this case to suggest that “ the declarant’s account of the occasion was influenced by resentment, and therefore was biased and incomplete.” There was no charge in that case as in this that if the jury received the dying statement it was their duty to “ receive it with great care and scan it with caution.” In the *Denton*case there was a proper and timely written request to charge; in this case there was no such request. In the instant case, the court having charged generally and correctly the law relating to dying declarations, if a fuller charge in reference thereto was desired it should have been requested in writing before the jury retired “to consider of their verdict.” •

2. In the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error he specifically abandons the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for theperiod ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Arthur S. Rosten, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ Arthur S. Rosten         Arthur S. Rosten    Chief Financial Officer    November 14, 2005
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 02, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 02, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15I0129. RONNIE DRAWDY et al. v. MARY SASSER et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

14CV0339
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4775 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities 

Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the 

El Paso, Texas, water reclamation, reuse, and desalinization project, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2004 

Mr. REYES (for himself, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. HINOJOSA, and Mrs. NAPOLITANO) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the El Paso, Texas, water 

reclamation, reuse, and desalinization project, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EL PASO, TEXAS, WATER RECLAMATION, 

4 REUSE, AND DESALINIZATION PROJECT. 

5 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Reclamation Wastewater 

6 and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 
2 

•HR 4775 IH 

1 102–575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended 

2 by adding at the end the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. EL PASO, TEXAS, WATER RECLAMATION, 

4 REUSE, AND DESALINIZATION PROJECT. 

5 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera6 tion with the State and local authorities, is authorized to 

7 participate in the design, planning, and construction of the 

8 El Paso Water Reclamation, Reuse, and Desalinization 

9 project to reclaim and reuse wastewater and to treat and 

10 reuse impaired and brackish groundwater in the service 

11 area of the El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board, 

12 El Paso, Texas. 

13 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost 

14 of the project authorized by this section shall not exceed 

15 50 percent of the total cost of the project. 

16 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

17 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

18 authorized by this section.’’. 

19 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

20 in section 2 of such Act is amended by inserting after the 

21 item relating to section 16ll the following: 

‘‘Sec. 16ll. El Paso, Texas, water reclamation, reuse, and desalinization 

project.’’. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                          26,024
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,409
<INVENTORY>                                    183,957
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               311,690
<PP&E>                                         388,826
<DEPRECIATION>                                 210,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 514,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          207,688
<BONDS>                                         71,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,706
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   514,260
<SALES>                                      2,831,114
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,888,836
<CGS>                                        2,469,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  375,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,997
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary of
Board of Directors Compensation Effective December 17, 2005


 


1.             Annual retainer of
$24,000


 


2.             Meeting fees of
$1,000 per meeting attended.  Lead
Director to receive a meeting fee of $3,000 per meeting attended.


 


3.             Committee meeting fee
of $500 per meeting attended.  Committee
Chair to receive a meeting fee of $3,000 per committee meeting attended.


 


4.             Award of options to
purchase 30,000 shares of Company common stock upon initial election to the
Board of Directors.


 


5.             Award of options to
purchase 15,000 shares of Company common stock for each additional year of
service on the Board.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JEROME A. WILLIAMS, )

Petitioner, )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0123-KD-B

RALPH HOOKS, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

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

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which

objection is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B) and dated March 2, 2010, is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice. 

The undersigned also finds that there are no grounds to appeal this determination. 

DONE this March 30, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00123-KD-B Document 26 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
Sally Bruce, Quality System Task Force Chair

Claire Saundry, President, SIM

APROBACIÓN DEL SISTEMA DE 

GESTIÓN DE LA CALIDAD

APPROVAL OF 

QUALITY MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) - USA

Chemistry and Biology 

The Quality Management System supporting measurement 

services, as defined in a motion of the Quality System Task 

Force (QSTF), has been reviewed and found to be in 

conformance with the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 

and ISO 17034 under the mandate of the Inter-American 

Metrology System in support of the expectations of the CIPM

Mutual Recognition Arrangement.

El Sistema de Gestión de Calidad en que se apoyan los servicios 

de medición, según se define en una moción del Grupo de 

Trabajo del Sistema de Calidad (QSTF), ha sido revisado y se ha 

determinado que cumple con los requisitos de ISO/IEC 

17025:2017 y ISO 17034 bajo mandato del Sistema 

Interamericano de Metrología en apoyo de las expectativas del 

Acuerdo de Reconocimiento Mutuo del CIPM.

Approval date: 12 MAY 2022

Expiration date: 12 MAY 2027
Ensuring a word-class scientific and technical 

NIST workforce: Thoughts from one NIST Fellow

VCAT

February 3, 2016

MICHAEL R. MOLDOVER

NIST Fellow

Leader, Fluid Metrology Group
~65 Postdocs/year

attractive stipend, $67 k/year

postdoc chooses research area from NIST-wide list of possibilities

centrally funded – incentive for postdoc advisors to recruit

~50 % become employees or Guest Researchers (2% of Tech Staff /yr)

rarely in postdoc research area (for me, 4/6 stayed at NIST) 

Not Perfect:

most applicants in Physical Measurement & Materials Measurement Labs

only 3% in Engr. Lab, only 1 % Information Tech,

Why?

1. A postdoc at NIST is not part of engineering culture

2. Metrology is not an academic discipline in USA 

3. Does NRC prefer academic proposals?

What Works: NRC-Administered Postdoc Program

2
Each of ~40 NIST Fellows allotted a centrally funded Postdoc 

Postdoc project initiated by Fellows; approved by NIST Director

(Fellows less concentrated in PML and MML)

Fellows can and do recruit 

Director’s Postdoc is an incentive to retain Fellows (like me) 

Promising Innovation: NIST Director’s Postdocs

3
When NIST initiates a new program, we need posdocs with skill sets 

that match the program needs. The authority to find and directly hire 

physics postdocs no longer exists

USA JOBS processes do not work well 

applicants exaggerate qualifications (no downside for lies)

20% of posted vacancies withdrawn—costs time!

Awkward Alternatives:

Contractors and Grants

Contractor’s or Grantee’s overhead is added to NIST overhead

What No Longer Works: Direct Hire

4
“People don’t retire anymore”

Workforce is aging: average age in Sensor Science Div: ~50 years

“lost excellent technicians to other agencies—changed what we do”

Challenge to retain highest performing scientists:

Lose a few: Kent Irwin to Stanford; Steve Cundiff to U of Mich

Big win: NIST has retained all 4 of its Nobel Laureates

Tools that NIST competes with

base funding for groups

excellent on-site child care 

diversity of disciplines--two body problem

Joint Institutes with Universities: JILA, JQI

Retention: Is this a problem?

5
10891.

#### Moore *v.*Tippin.

Decided September 17, 1920.

Foreclosure of mortgage; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Nunnally. July 25, 1919.

*Maddox & Doyal,*for plaintiff in error.

*Harris & Harris, C. H. Porter,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. The clerk of the superior court of Floyd county is ex-officio clerk of the city court of Floyd county. Ga. L. 1882-3, p. 535, section 5.

2. Whether or not there is any provision of law for a deputy clerk of the city court of Floyd county or for the deputy clerk of the superior court of Floyd county to act as ex-officio deputy clerk of the city court of Floyd county, an execution issuing out of the city court of Floyd county which is not signed or executed hy the clerk of the superior court of Floyd county who is ex-officio clerk of the city court of Floyd county, but is executed by a deputy clerk of the superior court of Floyd county who signs such execution as “S. L. Graham, by Tom Clemmons, Deputy Clerk City Court Floyd County, Georgia, Clerk,” is not a good and valid execution, and is not legally issued, since it nowhere appears that such deputy had authority to sign the name of the clerk to the execution or that the name of the clerk was signed thereto under the clerk’s immediate direction and control. *MacKenzie*v. *Jackson,*82 *Ga.*80 (8 S. E. 77); *Biggers*v. *Winkles,*124 *Ga.*990 (53 S. E. 397).

3. The levy should have been dismissed.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
Exhibit 21.1 

Mestek, Inc. 

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES 

As of December 31, 2003 

```

                                                                Jurisdiction of
Name                                                              Formation

Advanced Thermal Hydronics, Inc.                                  Delaware
Boyertown Foundry Company                                         Pennsylvania
Deltex Partners, Inc.                                             Delaware
Engel Industries, Inc.                                            Delaware
Formtek, Inc.                                                     Delaware
     Met-Coil Systems Corporation                                 Delaware
     Hill Engineering, Inc.                                       Illinois
     Formtek Cleveland, Inc. (FCI) (f/k/a SNS Properties, Inc.)   Ohio
     Yoder Manufacturing Company (Sub of FCI)                     Ohio
     Formtek Metalforming Integration, LLC                        Delaware
     Iowa Rebuilders, Inc.                                        Iowa
     Formtek Machinery (Beijing) Company, Ltd.                    China
     Axon Electric, LLC                                           Delaware
Gentex Partners, Inc.                                             Texas
     Mestex, Ltd. (Texas limited partnership)                     Texas
     Yorktown Properties, Ltd. (Texas limited partnership)        Texas
Keyser Properties, Inc.                                           Delaware
Lexington Business Trust (Massachusetts business trust)           Massachusetts
1470604 Ontario, Inc.                                             Canada
Mestek Canada, Inc.                                               Canada
Omega Flex, Inc.                                                  Pennsylvania
     Exton Ranch, Inc.                                            Delaware
     Omega Flex Limited                                           England
Pacific/Air Balance, Inc.                                         California
Westcast, Inc.                                                    Massachusetts
```
#### Scott v. The Mount Auburn and Marietta Turnpike Company et al.

*Turnpike.—List of*Lands.—When assessors, appointed under the act of March nth, 1867, to assess lands to aid in the construction of a turnpike, fail to include in the list, which they are required to make and return, all the lands within one mile and a half of the line and each terminus of the turnpike, an injunction will lie to prevent the collection of the assessment.

APPEAL from the Shelby Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

This was a complaint by the appellant against the appellees, to enjoin the collection of an assessment made for the construction of the road of said turnpike company, under the act of March nth, 1867. The defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer, the plaintiff excepted, and final judgment was rendered against him, from which he appeals. The error assigned is the sustaining of the demurrer to the complaint.

Among many other objections to the proceedings, it is alleged in the complaint, that the assessors of benefits did *272not view or make a list of all the lands within one and one-half miles of the line and termini of said road, but purposely and intentionally omitted from their said list, so returned, two thousand acres of land within such distance, and also the entire town of Marietta, at one terminus of said road, containing one hundred and twenty-four lots, all of which omitted real estate was of the value of two hundred thousand dollars, etc.

*0. J. Glessner,*for appellant.

It has been decided by this court, in several cases, that where the assessors fail to include in the list which they are required to make and return, all the lands within the taxing district, that is, within one and one-half miles of the road on each side, and at each terminus, the assessment máde by them cannot be sustained. *Hardwick*v. *The Danville, etc., Gravel Road Co.,*33 Ind. 321; *The New Haven, etc., Turnpike*Co.. v. *Bird,*33 Ind. 325. Other cases have followed these.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the court to overrule the demurrer, and for further proceedings.
11565.

#### White *v.*The State.

Decided July 13, 1920.

Indictment for the manufacture of liquor; from Upson superior court — Judge Searcy. April 24, 1920.

*W. Y. Allen,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. “The conviction of the defendant not depending entirely on circumstantial evidence, the court did not err in failing to charge the law of circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a timely written request.” *Garrett*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*801 (3) (95 S. E. 301). See also *Cook*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*771 (12), 780 (97 S. E. 264), and cit.

2. The court did not err in charging the jury as follows: “ The issue in this case is whether this defendant did violate this law; that is the real and only issue in the case. The State charges that he did violate it, and he denies it. The question for you to settle is whether or not he is guilty of the violation of this law. It is a question of fact for you to determine. The court has nothing to do with it.”

3. The evidence is ample to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
Exhibit 3.10
 NASH-FINCH COMPANY BYLAWS
(As Amended February 28, 2011)
 ARTICLE I  STOCK
    ARTICLE II  STOCKHOLDERS AND STOCKHOLDERS MEETINGS
   1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



ARTICLE III  DIRECTORS
     5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV  MEETINGS OF THE BOARD
  7




---



##### 



ARTICLE V  INDEMNIFICATION
 Section 1 Right to Indemnification
  Section 2 Other Indemnification
  Section 3 Indemnification Agreement
  8




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI  OFFICERS
          9




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII  DIVIDENDS
   ARTICLE VIII  FIXING RECORD DATE
  10




---



##### 



ARTICLE IX  REGISTERED STOCKHOLDERS
  ARTICLE X  NOTICE
   ARTICLE XI  SEAL
  ARTICLE XII  AMENDMENTS
  ARTICLE XIII  CONSTRUCTION
  11
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1481 

To revise the authority provided to the President to impose export licensing 

requirements or other restrictions on the export of crude oil from the 

United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

Mr. ARRINGTON (for himself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. 

BABIN, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. FALLON, Ms. VAN

DUYNE, Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, Mrs. BICE, Mr. WEBER of 

Texas, Mr. CRENSHAW, and Mr. JACKSON of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To revise the authority provided to the President to impose 

export licensing requirements or other restrictions on 

the export of crude oil from the United States, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Continuing Robust and 

5 Uninhibited Drilling and Exporting Act’’ or the ‘‘CRUDE 

6 Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1481 IH

1 SEC. 2. CRUDE OIL EXPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS 

2 AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS. 

3 Section 101(d)(1) of division O of the Consolidated 

4 Appropriations Act, 2016 (42 U.S.C. 6212a(d)(1)) is 

5 amended— 

6 (1) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as 

7 follows: 

8 ‘‘(A)(i) the Secretary of Defense, the Sec9 retary of Energy, and the Secretary of Com10 merce jointly find and report to the President 

11 and to the Congress that— 

12 ‘‘(I) the export of crude oil pursuant 

13 to this Act has caused sustained material 

14 oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices 

15 significantly above world market levels that 

16 are directly attributable to the export of 

17 crude oil produced in the United States; 

18 and 

19 ‘‘(II) those supply shortages or price 

20 increases have caused or are likely to cause 

21 sustained material adverse employment ef22 fects in the United States; and 

23 ‘‘(ii) the President declares a national 

24 emergency based on the findings of a report 

25 under clause (i) and formally notices the decVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:50 Mar 21, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1481.IH H1481

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1481 IH

1 laration of a national emergency in the Federal 

2 Register; or’’; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; or’’ and 

4 inserting a period; and 

5 (3) by striking subparagraph (C). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB