alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11588.

#### Giddens *v.*The State.

Decided July 28, 1920.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Harris superior court — Judge Howard. May 3, 1920. °

The ground of the motion for a new trial referred to in paragraph 1 of the decision is: “Because the court erred in charging the jury as follows: 'All essentials of murder, save killing, must exist before one may be convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder; and, in considering the instructions of the court on the subject of assault with intent to murder, you should view the transaction as if death had ensued at the time.’ The error in the foregoing charge consists in the failure to instruct the jury as to the difference between the rule where death results from an assault and where death does not result. . . The court should have instructed the jury substantially as follows: 'You would consider the testimony precisely as you would if death had resulted from the injury inflicted by the defendant, if any has been proven in this case. The only difference is that when death results, the intention to kill is presumed until the contrary appears; but when death does not result, the intention to kill is never presumed.’ . . The jury had no instructions from the court that would leave the question of the intention of the defendant to be determined by them, except the charge as follows: 'You should bear in mind that to constitute the offense of assault with intent to murder, there must have been an assault by one person upon another. An assault *541is defined in law as an attempt to commit a violent injury upon the person of another. Second, such assault must have been made with a weapon likely to produce death in the manner used; third, the assault must have been actuated by malice, either express or implied; and, fourth, made by the person making the assault with the specific intent to kill the person assaulted. The burden is on the State to show beyond a reasonable doubt that each- and all of these essential elements existed at the time the defendant committed the offense charged (if he did commit it), before he could be convicted of the offense of assault with intent to murder; and also that the offense, if it was committed, was not justified or justifiable under the law, and not in self-defense/”

*540Broyles, C. J.

1. The excerpt from the charge of the court complained of in the special ground of the motion for a new trial, when considered in connection with the other portions of the charge set out in that ground, contains no reversible error.

2. The other grounds of the motion for a new trial, not having been argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, are treated as abandoned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*

*541
      *Hardy & Peavy,*for plaintiff in error,

cited: 90 *Ga.*691; 92- *Ga.*463; 106 *Ga.*368; 125 *Ga.*11; 9 *Ga. App.*291 (1); 10 *Ga. App.*831; 12 *Ga. App.*540; 1 *Ga. App.*118; 2 *Ga. App.*418; 7 *Ga. App.*541 (6).

*C. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra,

cited: 7 *Ga. App.*848; 125 *Ga.*101.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FORM FROM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         141,119
<SECURITIES>                                 2,191,859
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,332,978
<PP&E>                                           7,863
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,340,841
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          865,568
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,730
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,441,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,340,841
<SALES>                                         31,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,036
<CGS>                                           17,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,001,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (68,609)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (918,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (918,767)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AMDL, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a  15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: November 14, 2008
    /s/ Douglas C. MacLellanDouglas C. MacLellanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
AMDL, Inc.
EXHIBIT 31.1

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, James F. Hyatt, II, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ruby Tuesday, Inc.; and

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

| Date: October 4, 2017 |   | /s/ James F. Hyatt, II                |
|----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                       |   | James F. Hyatt, II                    |
|                       |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
#### Brett Shannon BLANCHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis DARMAIN, Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-17495.

D.C. No. CV-99-00914-EHC.

United States Court *of*Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 25, 2001.

Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies Blanchard’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Brett Shannon Blanchard, a Texas state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an action pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) for failure to state a claim. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

Because Judge Darmain acted within the scope of his authority and jurisdiction, the district properly found Judge Darmain immune and dismissed the claims against him. *See Ashelman v. Pope,*793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th Cir.1986) (en banc).

Because a child protective service (“CPS”) worker is afforded quasi-judicial immunity for executing court orders, the district court properly dismissed Blanchard’s claims against the unnamed CPS worker. *See Coverdell v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs.,*834 F.2d 758, 764-65 (9th Cir.1987); *see also Wakefield v. Thompson,*177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir.1999).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against the Governor of Arizona and the Arizona Attorney General because Blanchard failed to allege facts sufficient to establish third-party standing. *See Powers v. Ohio,*499 U.S. 400, 410-11, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991).

Because it was clear that amendment could not cure the defects in Blanchard’s complaint, the district court properly dismissed without leave to amend. *See Cato v. United States,*70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995).

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
SASCalc

Periodic Boundary 

Conditions

Ian Hunt-Isaak, Joseph E. Curtis, Steven C. Howell
Why are concentrated proteins so viscous?

https://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/205886/remigho-syringe.png
Small-Angle Scattering (SAS) Measures 
Form factor Structure factor
SAS measures protein interactions
SAS measures protein interactions

Form Factor Form Factor
Co-solutes modulate protein interactions

Change in 

scattering is not 

dominated by P

(q) or S(q) alone.
Molecular Simulation

http://nmschneider.com/blog/2014/5/9/nearest-image-for-particle-simulations-in-matlab
Molecular Simulation

http://nmschneider.com/blog/2014/5/9/nearest-image-for-particle-simulations-in-matlab
Fourier Transform: g(r) → S(Q)

● Most general

● Slow

● Limited to spherical systems
Finite size effects 
Finite size effects 
Desired Features of Calculator

● Simultaneously calculate both P(Q) and S(Q)

● Avoid finite size effects

● Fast
Debye Formula

Not universally applicable:

vs
Explicit Fourier Transform

● Most general

○ Contains P(Q) and S(Q)
First Test System - Lennard Jones Particles

Radial Distribution Function for Liquid Argon at 85 K - Yarnell, et al.

Verify Radial Distribution of Simulation 
Solution

● Fancy Stat Mech - g(r)

○ Limited to spherical systems

● Bigger Box

○ Num Atoms ~ (Box Length)3

● Calculate Box scattering and remove
Removing Box Effects
Removing Box Effects
Next Steps

● Apply this to a periodic box of proteins (lysozyme, mAb)

● Automate algorithm to subtract box effects

● Parallelize using GPUs
Thank you!
Backup Slides
Existing Calculators

Experiment Simulation

Watch out S(Q) ≠ I(Q). 
S(Q) via Fourier Transform

● g(r) simple to 

calculate

● Can extend g(r) 

to large r
Sascalc - Golden Vector

● Multiple Molecules? 

● Separation of S and P?

Two questions:

● Can Extract S?

● Periodic Boundary Conditions effects?

How do we study?

Small-Angle Neutron Scattering Study of a Monoclonal Antibody Using Free-Energy Constraints. Clark Et. Al (2013)

Experiment Simulation
Current Limitations

10 mg/ml 100 mg/ml

Of Medical interest? YES YES

Can we calculate 

Scattering?

YES NO (somewhat)

Simulation Boxes:
Methods to Calculate S(Q)

● Pair Distance Distribution

● Debye Formula

● Explicit Fourier Transform
First Test System - Lennard Jones Particles

Taken from Structure Factor and radial Distribution Function for Liquid Argon at 85 K - Yarnell, Et. 

al.

Verify Pair Distance Distribution of Simulation
<PAGE>
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Mobil Corporation of our report dated February 26, 1999, included in the 1998
Annual Report to Shareholders of Mobil Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Mobil Corporation
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-18130 and 333-16819) pertaining to the Employees Savings
Plan of Mobil Oil Corporation; Form S-8 (No. 33-5797) pertaining to the 1986
Mobil Incentive Compensation and Stock Option Plan; Form S-3 (No. 33-34133-01)
of the Mobil Oil Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan Trust for the
registration of $300,000,000 principal amount of debt securities guaranteed by
Mobil Corporation; Form S-3 (No. 33-43745) for the registration of
$1,500,000,000 of Mobil Corporation Debt Securities; Form S-3 (No. 33-49945) for
the registration of $1,500,000,000 of Mobil Corporation Debt Securities; Form
S-8 (No. 33-48887) pertaining to the 1991 Mobil Incentive Compensation and Stock
Option Plan; Form S-3 (No. 33-50943) pertaining to the Mobil Corporation Stock
Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan for the registration of 5,000,000 shares
of Mobil Corporation Common Stock (on a pre two-for-one stock split basis) and
related Preferred Share Purchase Rights; Form S-8 (No. 33-61657) pertaining to
the 1995 Mobil Incentive Compensation and Stock Ownership Plan; Form S-3 (No.
333-13457) for the registration of $650,000,000 Pass Through Certificates with
the applicable underlying payments guaranteed by Mobil Corporation; and in the
related Prospectuses of our report dated February 26, 1999, with respect to the
financial statements incorporated herein by reference and our report included in
the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mobil Corporation.



                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                                            Ernst & Young LLP



Fairfax, Virginia
March 26, 1999

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

                                     -33-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RBC BANK (USA), )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 09-0570-WS-N

 )

LYNN E. FOWLER, ) 

 )

Defendant. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Court’s order of January 28, 2010, the plaintiff shall have

and recover from the defendant Lynn E. Fowler the sum of $245,283.52, said sum to

accrue post-judgment interest as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 58, judgment is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff United States of

America and against defendant Lynn E. Fowler.

DONE this 28th day of January, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00570-WS-N Document 16 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY (the Company), hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|               |  |  |  |                                            
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|               |  |  |  | /s/    Paul J. Evanson                     
|March 10, 2005 |  |  |  | Paul J. Evanson Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT*




                                                            State or Other
                                                           Jurisdiction of
                                                          Incorporation or
       Name of Subsidiary                                   Organization
       ------------------                                   ------------

Moore Products Co. (Canada) Inc.                               Canada


Moore Products Co. (U.K.) Limited                              England


Moore Products Co. B.V.                                        Netherlands


Moore Products Co. (Italia) S.r.l.                             Italy


Moore Products Co. (France) SARL                               France


Moore Products Co. (Australia) Pty. Ltd.                       Australia


Moore Products Co (S) Pte Ltd                                  Singapore


Moore Products Co. (Japan) K.K.                                Japan


*The names of certain subsidiaries are omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(21)(ii)
of Regulation S-K.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-10685

 

JULIE DEFFENBAUGH WILLIAMS

Plaintiff-Appellee

Cross-Appellant

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INC, ET AL

Defendants

WAL-MART STORES, INC

Defendant-Appellant

Cross-Appellee

- - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

- - - - -

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion September 24, 1998, 5 Cir., 1998, _____F.3d____)

(February 26, 1999)

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ,

WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES,

STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a

poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the

judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court

en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The

Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of

supplemental briefs. 

________________________
Chief Judge King is recused and did not participate in this

decision.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4832 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4832

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit representatives 
 of the foreign press to enter the United States under the visa waiver 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 14, 2004

 Mr. Houghton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit representatives 
 of the foreign press to enter the United States under the visa waiver 
                                program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom of the Press Reinforcement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF VISA WAIVER PROGRAM TO REPRESENTATIVES OF 
              FOREIGN PRESS.

    (a) Application of Program.--Section 217 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187) is amended by adding at the end the 
following new subsection:
    ``(i) Special Rule for Foreign Press.--An alien may be classified 
as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15)(B) for purposes of this 
section, notwithstanding that the alien is a representative of foreign 
press, radio, film, or other foreign information media seeking to enter 
the United States to engage in such vocation.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(a)(15)(B) of such Act (8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B)) is amended by inserting after ``unskilled labor 
or'' the following: ``, except as provided in section 217(i),''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Thomas J. Monarch et al. *v.*Henry W. Scott.

Pleading — Reply, When Not Necessary.

A counterclaim or set-off which does not contain allegations necessary to constitute a cause of action, and which is in effect a mere denial of plaintiff’s right to recover, does not require a reply.

APPEAL PROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

March 10, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The substance of the agreement between the appellee and Monarch compelled the latter 'to account for the moneys collected by him as deputy, and imposed a liability on his sureties upon his failure to do so.

The two sums of money in controversy were advanced by the appellee to enable Monarch to collect the payments due or required to be made on the county bonds. The word “loaned,” used by the appellants in giving a history of the manner in which the, money was obtained, means nothing more than that Monarch, having failed to make the payment, or being in want of funds for *572that purpose, the appellee furnished him the money. No note was taken for'the amount, and when handed by Scott to Monarch the latter had it placed to his, Monarch’s, credit in the deposit bank. The *money*has never been repaid Scott, and his right to make the sureties liable for it will not admit of controversy.

*Williams, for appellants.*

*Sweeney & Stewart, for appellee.*

The reply lodged with the papers was evidently regarded as traversing the statements made in what is termed the counterclaim or set-off. This pleading, however, needed no reply, as it fails to contain the allegations necessary to constitute a cause of action, and is in effect a mere denial of appellants’ right to’ recover. An exhibit ‘bf the accounts between the parties is made in the pleadings, and if not, is to be found in the report made by the commissioner. No judgment should have been rendered for the item of sixty dollars interest — the whole account had been litigated, except the two items of $560 and $496.30, and a judgment rendered upon which an execution was directed to issue. This judgment could not be disturbed at a subsequent term of the court without the consent of the parties, or in the absence of such a proceeding as would authorize the court to vacate or modify it. The judgment of the court below is reversed as to the item of sixty dollars, alone, the appellee being entitled to his judgment for the balance.