alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TRANSIENT OVERVOLTAGE PROTECTION SEMINAR

François D. Martzloff

Corporate Research and Development

General Electric Company

Reprint of handout for Seminars in Birmingham & London, UK and Stockholm, Sweden, 1979

Significance

Part 6: Tutorials, textbooks, and reviews

A record of three seminars organized in support of the introduction of the GE-MOV varistors in Europe. 

Text and slide presentation.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
Exhibit 3.2

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
                          BLACK WARRIOR WIRELINE CORP.


         Black Warrior  Wireline  Corp.,  a  corporation  organized and existing
under and by virtue of the  General  Corporation  Law of the State of  Delaware,
does hereby certify:

         FIRST:  That at a Meeting of the Board of  Directors  of Black  Warrior
Wireline Corp., resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment
to  the  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of  said  Corporation,  declaring  said
amendment  to be  advisable  and calling a meeting of the  stockholders  of said
Corporation  for  consideration  thereof or  directing  that said  amendment  be
submitted to  stockholders  for action without a meeting by consents in writing.
The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

         RESOLVED,  that Article Fourth of the Certificate of  Incorporation  of
         this corporation be hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  FOURTH:  The total  number of shares of  capital  stock of all
         classes which the Corporation  shall have authority to issue is Fifteen
         Million  (15,000,000)  shares,  of which  Twelve  Million  Five Hundred
         Thousand (12,500,000) shares, of a par value of $.0005 per share, shall
         be designated  "Common  Stock",  and Two Million Five Hundred  Thousand
         (2,500,000)  shares,  of a par  value  of  $.01  per  share,  shall  be
         designated "Preferred Stock."

         SECOND:  That  thereafter,  pursuant  to  resolution  of its  Board  of
Directors, a meeting of the stockholders of said Corporation was duly called and
held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General  Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware,  at which  meeting the  necessary  number of shares as
required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

         THIRD:  That said  amendment  was duly adopted in  accordance  with the
provisions  of  Section  242 of the  General  Corporation  Law of the  State  of
Delaware.

         FOURTH: That the capital of said Corporation shall not be reduced under
or by reason of said amendment.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  said Black Warrior Wireline Corp. has caused this
Certificate  to be signed by William L.  Jenkins,  its  President,  and  Melissa
Clark, its Assistant Secretary, this 29th day of October, 1997.


Attest:                                             Black Warrior Wireline Corp.

/s/ Melissa Clark                   /s/ William L. Jenkins
-----------------------------       -------------------------------------
Melissa Clark, Assistant Secretary  William L. Jenkins, President
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


         In connection with the Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group I, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"),
I, William Colucci, Treasurer 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 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: January 22, 2004

                           /s/ William Colucci
                           ----------------------------
                           William Colucci, Treasurer
                           BF Acquisition Group I, Inc.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LARRY C. DIXON, #138238, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0811-WS-N

CMS MEDICAL, et al., :

Defendants. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE this 23rd day of February, 2010. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00811-WS-N Document 10 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-00321-KD-C

 :

BOCONCO, INC., :

 :

Defendants :

ORDER

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

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

March 26, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that Defendant

Boconco, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) is DENIED. 

DONE and ORDERED this the 13th day of April 2010. 

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00321-KD-C Document 58 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 1
11025.

#### Shaw, sheriff, *v.*Walker, for use, etc.

Stephens, J.

1. Entries upon an execution cannot serve to keep the judgment in life unless the entries are properly recorded. Where an execution was issued from the superior court in the year 1903, . and on the same day recorded on the execution docket of that court, and the entries thereon were not recorded upon the execution docket of that court, as required prior to the act of 1910, the execution became dormant after a period of seven years from the time of record. *Columbus Fertilizer Co.*v. *Hanks,*119 *Ga.*950 (47 S. E. 222) ; Civil Code of 1895, § 3761.

2. A sale by a sheriff under a dormant fi. fa. is a nullity. The purchaser acquires no title to the property sold, and may recover the purchase-money which he has paid to the sheriff under such illegal sale. *Davis*v. *Comer,*108 *Ga.*117 (33 S. E. 852, 75 Am. St. Rep. 33).

3. Where the- purchaser at the sheriff’s sale has been indemnified, by the payment to him of an amount equal to the purchase-money by one who purchased the property from the defendant in fi. fa. prior to the levy and sale and recovered the property from the purchaser in a trover suit, the purchaser may nevertheless maintain a suit for the use of such person, against the sheriff, to recover the amount paid by the purchaser to the sheriff under such illegal sale.

4. It not being plainly apparent that the case was brought to this court for delay only, the motion for damages against the plaintiff in error is denied,

*643Decided September 17, 1920:

Money rule; from Tift superior court — Judge Eve. October 4, 1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*R. A. Hendricks,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fulwood & Hargrett,*contra.

5. A verdict for the plaintiff was properly directed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEO FRAZIER, as Administrator )

of the Estate of Manuel DeJesus )

Corado, deceased )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil Action No. 09-00119-CG-N

)

SHELTON AND TYRONE POWE )

LOGGING, et al, )

 )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties having filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice (Doc. 106), all claims

in this matter are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear his or its own

costs.

DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of May, 2010.

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00119-CG-N Document 107 Filed 05/24/10 Page 1 of 1
null

2010-03-23

436.2569

eng - Argued: 2010-03-23. Docket number: 1-07-2637
<page>	EXHIBIT 32.01


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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund II L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		November 14, 2003
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 No. 333-06007, Form S-8 No. 333-08323, Form S-3 No. 33-53252, Form S-3
No. 33-34303, Form S-3 No. 33-35301, form S-3 No. 33-41916, Form S-3 No.
33-82618, form S-3 No. 33-63841, form S-8 No. 33-34304, Form S-8 No. 33-60969,
Form S-8 No. 33-63537, Form S-3 No. 333-36637, Form S-3 No. 333-48217, Form S-3
No. 333-69743, Form S-8 No. 333-64287 and Form S-8 No. 333-69747) of e4L, Inc.
and the related prospectuses of our report dated June 25, 1999 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of e4L, Inc. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1999.


                                       Ernst & Young LLP

Los Angeles, California
June 25, 1999


                                      -48-
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the annualreport on Form 10-K of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC(the “Companies”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, PeterR. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Companies.
| /s/ Peter R. Huntsman     |   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|
| Peter R. Huntsman         |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| March 1, 2007             |   |

 

1

----
#### Henry Magill *v.*R. D. Watson, et al.

Action to Recover Personal Property — Averments in Petition.

In an action to recover possession of personal property the petition must allege the value of the property sought to be recovered.

APPEAL PROM DAVIES CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1874.

*Sweeney & Stuart, for appellant.*

*Ray & Walker, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Although this action was prosecuted by equitable proceedings, it is in all its characteristics an action to recover the possession of specific personal property. The petition described the certificates of deposit with as much accuracy as it was possible under the circumstances to do; but it was defective in failing to allege the actual value of the thing sought to be recovered.

This defect, however, was not objected to, and would now be unavailing if the judgment of the chancellor had cured it. The evidence as to the possession by appellant without right of the certificate of deposit for four thousand dollars, and as to the right of appellant to recover, is clear and conclusive; but the judgment must be reversed, because it fails to conform to the provisions of Sec. 360, of the Civil Code of Practice. It fails to assert the value of the property to be recovered, and is not in the alternative, as it should be. Appellant fails to make out his claim to the balance due on the capital stock in the Southern Bank of Kentucky. His cross-petition was properly dismissed.

The judgment in favor of appellees is *reversed,*and the cause remanded with instructions to amend their petition, should they offer to do so within a reasonable time, and in case such amendment is made, then for a judgment conformable to this opinion.

Judge Cofer not sitting.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK JOSEPH CHAREST,

AIS 182262,

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-0067-CG-C

)

BILLY MITCHEM, )

)

Respondent. )

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate (Doc. 63), and the motion to withdraw by counsel for petitioner (Doc. 69).

Upon due consideration, the motion to withdraw by counsel for petitioner is 

hereby GRANTED, and the petitioner is granted leave to proceed pro se.

The Court has considered the pro se objections (Doc. 66) to the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this 

file deemed relevant to the issued raised, the Recommendation of the Magistrate 

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated March 8, 2013, is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00067-CG-C Document 70 Filed 04/10/13 Page 1 of 1
11708.

#### Slaughter *v.*The State.

Decided November 9, 1920.

Conviction of shooting at another; from Monroe superior court — Judge Searcy. June 4, 1920.

*A. M. Zellner,*for plaintiff in error.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The motion for a- new trial contains only the usual general grounds; the verdict was amply authorized hy the evidence, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP).

#### SPP Planning Summit December 2014

The above-referenced meeting will be held December 16, 2014 at:

SPP Corporate Offices, Auditorium B, 201 Worthen Drive, Little Rock, AR 72223.

The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.

The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

                    Docket No. ER13-366,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    Docket No. ER13-367,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    Docket No. ER13-1937,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    Docket No. ER13-1939,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    Docket No. ER14-2850,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    Docket No. ER14-2851,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    Docket No. ER15-492,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    Docket No. ER15-509,                     *Southwest Power Pool, Inc.*

                    For more information, contact Jay Sher, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-8921 or                     *jay.sher@ferc.gov.*

Dated: December 4, 2014.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2014-29053 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
#### State of ALASKA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary D. HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant, and David B. Harrison; et al., Defendants.

No. 99-35852.

D.C. No. CV-94-00464-HRH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, 2001.*

Decided May 25, 2001.

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

*

 Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Harrison’s motion for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gary D. Harrison appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the state of Alaska in its condemnation action under 25 U.S.C. § 357. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo grants of summary judgment, *Robi v. Reed,*173 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 952, 120 S.Ct. 375, 145 L.Ed.2d 293 (1999), and affirm.

We affirm the district court’s determination that the state of Alaska holds a highway right-of-way on Chickaloon River Road where it crosses the allotment held in part by Gary Harrison for the reasons stated in its order filed on October 28, 1998.

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to the valuation of the area lying outside of the previous right-of-way. *See*Alaska Stat. § 09.55.240(a)(5); *S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Rice,*685 F.2d 354, 357 (9th Cir.1982). The state of Alaska’s evidence sufficiently supported the district court’s conclusion, and Harrison did not submit any evidence in opposition.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harrison’s motion for reconsideration. *See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).

We will not consider Harrison’s contentions with respect to the federal defendants because the state of Alaska is the only appellee in this appeal.

Harrison’s remaining contentions lack merit, including the contentions pertaining to his prior separate suit to quiet title against the state of Alaska.

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23.1


              CONSENT OF ODENBERG ULLAKKO MURANISHI & COMPANY, LLP



               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants




We  consent  to the use in  this  Annual  Report  on Form  10-KSB  of  AccuImage
Diagnostics  Corp.  of our report  dated  December  30,  2002,  relating  to the
financial statements of AccuImage Diagnostics Corp., which appear in such Annual
Report.  We also consent to the  reference to us under the heading  "Experts" in
such Annual Report.



/s/ Odenberg Ullakko Muranishi & Company, LLP



Odenberg Ullakko Muranishi & Company, LLP
San Francisco, CA
December 30, 2002
Research Questions regarding bloodstain pattern classification

Addendum to: Bloodstain Pattern Classification Research Needs Assessment Form

OSAC BPA Subcommittee November 17, 2016

Page 1 of 2

ADDENDUM

Research questions regarding bloodstain pattern classification

OSAC Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Subcommittee

November 17, 2016

Introduction

This document serves as an addendum to the OSAC Research Needs Assessment Form 

entitled “Bloodstain Pattern Classification” approved by the Bloodstain Pattern Analysis 

Subcommittee on November 17, 2016. The BPA Subcommittee is of the opinion this 

addendum provides additional details not captured in said form.

What is the problem?

1) Different people (of similar competence/experience) may give different classifications 

for the same pattern. 

Evidence: CTS proficiency tests/casework testimony

2) The inter and intra pattern variability is high: two impact patterns may exhibit as much 

variation as an impact pattern compared to an expiration pattern

Evidence: BPA course exercises/personal experimentation/casework examples

3) The descriptions of patterns are sometimes/often a description of the mechanism. The 

thought process during pattern classification is not well worked out: before classifying 

a pattern, objective, measurable characteristics should direct the analyst into the 

correct classification.

Evidence: SWGSTAIN terminology list/BPA language used in terminology

Why do we care about these problems?

Accurate conclusions regarding mechanisms are vital to a fair outcome in court.

What are the research questions?

1) How do BPA analysts currently classify patterns?

2) Find the characteristics of individual patterns that are relevant to pattern 

classification.

3) How much variation is there in classification among different BPA analysts?
Research Questions regarding bloodstain pattern classification

Addendum to: Bloodstain Pattern Classification Research Needs Assessment Form

OSAC BPA Subcommittee November 17, 2016

Page 2 of 2

4) What terms do we need to describe a bloodstained area in an objective and 

unambiguous way? (Find data descriptors that describe relevant bloodstain 

characteristics in a physical measurable way)

5) Find a universal way to articulate pattern classification in order to come to the 

same outcome for all trained analysts.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00459

- CV

In re Jose Nasipak

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Based on the br iefing and the incomplete record

, Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a), t he

pet iti on for writ of habeas corpus is denied

, s ee id. R. 52.8(a)

.

_______________________ ___________________

Thomas J. Baker , Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Filed: September 23 , 2021
[Exhibit 32.1]

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of BF Acquisition Group
IV,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending
April  30,  2002  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Colucci,
President 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 the Securities Exchange Act  of  1934;
and
          (2)  The  information contained in  the  Report  fairly
presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 16, 2004

                                   /s/ William Colucci
                                   ------------------------------
                                   William Colucci, President
                                   BF Acquisition Group IV, Inc.