alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE**

**MORRISON RETIREMENT PLAN**

**(As amended and restated effective January 1, 2005)**

 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made on this 8th day of July, 2008, by RUBY TUESDAY, INC. (the “Primary Sponsor”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia.

 

**INTRODUCTION****:**

 

WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor maintains the Morrison Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), which was last amended and restated by indenture dated November 1, 2004 and was subsequently amended by the First Amendment thereto, effective as of February 1, 2007; and

 

WHEREAS, the Primary Sponsor now desires to amend the Plan to reflect changes required or permitted by the Pension Protection Act of 2006; to update the Plan for final Treasury regulations issued under Section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code, which are generally effective for limitation years beginning on or after July 1, 2007; and to reflect other changes in the law for which Plan amendments are required as indicated by the 2007 cumulative list of changes in plan qualification requirements published by the Internal Revenue Service under Revenue Procedure 2007-44.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Primary Sponsor does hereby amend the Plan, effective July 1, 2008, except as otherwise provided herein, as follows:

 

|   | 1. | By adding the following language to the end of Section 1.1: |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------|

 

“Notwithstanding anything in this Section to the contrary, if the Plan’s Funding Target Attainment Percentage is less than sixty percent (60%) for any Plan Year, no benefits will accrue under the Plan for any Participant as of the valuation date for such Plan Year, unless during such Plan Year, the Plan Sponsor makes a contribution to the Trust (in addition to any minimum required contribution under Code Section 430) equal to the amount sufficient to result in a Funding Target Attainment Percentage of sixty percent (60%) or greater.  For purposes of the immediately preceding sentence, no “prefunding balance” (as defined in Code Section 430(f)(6)) or “funding standard carryover balance” (as defined in Code Section 430(f)(7)) may be used to satisfy the contribution to the Trust.”

 

2.         By deleting existing Section 1.2(b) in its entirety and by substituting therefor the following:

 

 “(b)     For purposes of calculating the present value and distributing a Participant’s Accrued Benefit in the form of a lump sum, the Actuarial Equivalent shall be determined by using the applicable interest rate and applicable mortality table designated by the Secretary of the Treasury under Code Section 417(e)(3).”

 

----
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-131729 on
Form S-8, and Registration Statement Nos. 333-144043 and 333-144989 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 25, 2009,
relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Huntsman Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the
adoption of certain provisions of FASB Statement No. 158 during each of 2006 and 2008, and FASB Interpretation No. 48 during 2007), and the effectiveness of Huntsman Corporation's
internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Huntsman Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Houston,
Texas
February 25, 2009

---



QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA CONE SELENSKY, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0041-WS-C

JUDGE MATTHEW GREEN, :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

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

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE this 26th day of April, 2010.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00041-WS-C Document 9 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.02


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 June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Kevin
Perry, Chief Financial Officer, 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(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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		August 14, 2006
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, 2006 (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        
|                  |  |  |  | Paul J. Evanson            
|February 27, 2007 |  |  |  | Principal Executive Officer
Steps for Requesting an Account or Training in the OWM Contacts System 

Register for an Account in OWM Contacts System 

Submit a Registration

Request

1 

Account Already Exists 

;ƵƉůŝĐĂƚĞͿ

2b 

OWM Approves 

Registration

OWM Contacts 

System sends 

ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞƌ

confirmaƟon of the 

hƐĞƌĐĐŽƵŶƚ and 

Wassword 

2a /Ĩ the requester already 

has an account. OWM

will email the requester 

their User Account and a 

temporary password.

ZĞƐĞƚƚŝŶŐĂ

WĂƐƐǁŽƌĚŽƌ

ZĞĐŽǀĞƌŝŶŐĂhƐĞƌ

ĐĐŽƵŶƚŝŶƚŚĞ

OWM Contacts 

System (PDF) 

Within one

business 

day

RequestŝŶŐTrainingŽƌĂdƌĂŶƐĐƌŝƉƚ

OWM Contacts System 

resets and sends ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞƌa

hƐĞƌĐĐŽƵŶƚĂŶĚ

 and Wassword 

3b 

Using your User Account and 

password, participant requests 

training

5 

OWM approves training request 

after the the registration deadline

6 

ParƟcipant is NOW registered and 

will receive future communicaƟons 

concerning each class

7 

An email confirmation will be sent 

to requester. Classes with prework or registration fees will have 

letters with guidance 

• Seminar: Approx. 6 to 8 weeks 

prior.

• Webinar: Approx. 3 weeks prior.

If a confirmation letter is needed 

prior to this, please contact at 

yvonne.branden@nist.gov 

4 How to Request TrainingŽƌĂTranscript 

(PDF) 

NOTE: For webinars, participants will receive a URL to sign in as a 

GUEST. This will not require an OWM Contacts System user name or 

password. 

NIST Weights and Measures 1 INS4003 – April 2021
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40934

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY QUINN DUCKETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-173-16

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appointed counsel for Anthony Quinn Duckett has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Duckett has filed a response

in which he raises claims of ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. The record is insufficiently developed to allow

consideration of Duckett’s claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th

Cir. 1987). 
No. 06-40934

-2-

Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Duckett’s

response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for

appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
BID - 03.31.2015-10Q-Ex10.1








Exhibit 10.1
SOTHEBY’S NEVADA, INC.
5600 Spring Mountain Road, Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89102


 
March 23, 2015


Acquavella Contemporary Art, Inc.
c/o Mr. William R. Acquavella
300 Pleasure Drive
Flanders, NY 11901


Dear Bill:


This letter agreement amends the Agreement of Partnership (the “Partnership Agreement”) of Acquavella Modern Art, a Nevada general partnership, dated May 29, 1990, between Sotheby’s Nevada, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (“Sotheby’s Partner”), and Acquavella Contemporary Art, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (“Acquavella Partner”).


By prior letters of amendment, we have agreed to extend the term of the Partnership Agreement through March 31, 2015.  By this letter of amendment, we are agreeing to extend the term of the Partnership Agreement for one additional year through March 31, 2016.  Accordingly, each of the Sotheby’s Partner and the Acquavella Partner hereby agree to amend Section 1.5 (iii) of the Partnership Agreement, as heretofore amended, to delete the reference to March 31, 2015 and substitute therefor the date of “March 31, 2016.”


Except as amended hereby, the Partnership Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed.


Please sign this letter agreement in the space provided below.  Upon execution on behalf of the Acquavella Partner, this letter agreement shall be effective as of the date of this letter.


SOTHEBY’S NEVADA, INC.


 


By: /S/ PATRICK S. MCCLYMONT


Patrick S. McClymont, Vice President  






AGREED AND ACCEPTED 
ACQUAVELLA CONTEMPORARY ART, INC.




By: /S/ WILLIAM R. ACQUAVELLA


William R. Acquavella, President
11251.

#### Sikes *v.*McDilda.

Decided April 7, 1920.

Trover; from city court of Reidsville-—-Judge Cowart. December 3, 1919.

*Elders & DeLoach,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. T. Burkhalter, S. B. McCall,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

For the reasons given in *Tillman*v. *Groover,*ante, 118, the writ of error in this case must be

*Dismissed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
ir<N -/«f

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 01-13-00899-CR

Antonio Bravo v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM

OFFENSE: 31.07 (Unauthorized Use ofVehicle)

COUNTY: Harris

TRIAL COURT: 183rd District Court

DATE: 10/23/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1375810

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Antonio Bravo v. The State of Texas

APfiBLLAMT7^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: 9

JUDGE:

Cliffy**

CCA#: 1W -/¥

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20529

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ABDIEL PLANCARTE-FRUTIS, also known as Adbiel Plancarte, also known 

as Adbiel Frutis Plancarte,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-32-1

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Abdiel Plancarte-Frutis appeals the sentence imposed following his 

guilty plea conviction for being unlawfully present in the United States 

following removal subsequent to a conviction for an aggravated felony. 

Plancarte-Frutis argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because it is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

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

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-20529 Document: 00513572015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2016
No. 15-20529

§ 3553(a). He maintains that his within-guidelines range sentence should not 

be considered presumptively reasonable because the Guideline under which he 

was sentenced, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, is not empirically based, but he acknowledges 

that this argument is foreclosed. He asserts that his guidelines range was 

greater than necessary because § 2L1.2 double counted his prior conviction as 

that conviction was responsible for a 16-level increase and all five of his 

criminal history points. He contends that the sentence failed to account for his 

personal history and characteristics because it did not reflect his strong ties to 

the United States and the motive for his offense. 

A discretionary sentence imposed within the advisory guidelines range 

is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 

337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). As Plancarte-Frutis acknowledges, his assertion that 

we should not apply a presumption of reasonableness because § 2L1.2 is not 

empirically based is foreclosed. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-

31 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court weighed the sentencing factors, rejected PlancarteFrutis’s request for a downward variance, and imposed a within-guidelines 

range sentence primarily based on Plancarte-Frutis’s criminal offenses. The 

double counting argument that Plancarte-Frutis raises has been previously 

rejected. See Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. As Plancarte-Frutis was sentenced 

within the guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of 

reasonableness, and Plancarte-Frutis has not shown sufficient reason for us to 

disturb that presumption. See United States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 

565-66 (5th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 15-20529 Document: 00513572015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2016
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74713-74714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29411]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Inventions; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are those in which the United 
States Government as represented by the

[[Page 74714]]

Secretary of the Navy has an ownership interest and are made available 
for licensing by the Department of the Navy.

Navy Case No. 100035: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/535,384 
FLOATING POINT MULTIPLY-ADD-SUBTRACT IMPLEMENTATION filed 11/7/2014// 
Navy Case No. 300005: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/549,586 A 
DELAMINATION AND CRACK PREVENTION LAYER FOR STRUCTURAL SANDWICH PANEL 
filed 11/21/2014// Navy Case No. 300083: NUWC XP-1 POLYURETHANE// Navy 
Case No. 101048: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 13/361,312 DYNAMIC 
ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE MATCHING DEVICE AND METHOD filed 7/27/2012//

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Theresa A. Baus, Head, Technology 
Partnerships Office, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, 
1176 Howell St., Newport, RI 02841-1703, telephone: 401-832-8728, email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ebbf838e998e988ac5898a9e98ab858a9d92c5868287"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c7844495e495f4d024e4d595f6c424d5a5502414540">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.)

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
N.A. Hagerty-Ford
Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-29411 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Nash Finch Company.

| |  | /s/RON MARSHALLRon Marshall Chief Executive
Officer                                     
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                                         
| |  | /s/ROBERT B. DIMONDRobert B. Dimond Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Nash Finch Company and will be retained by the Nash Finch Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

1

---

QuickLinks
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00105-CR

Daniel Camacho, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR05-401, HONORABLE WILLIAM HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Daniel Camacho seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for engaging in

organized criminal activity and aggravated robbery. The trial court has certified that Camacho

waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2); Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622

(Tex. Crim. App. 2003);see also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The

appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 17, 2006

Do Not Publish
USGv6 Test Selection Tables*

IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)

F2-Conformance: SLAAC-v1.2

Applicable Profile: NIST SP 500-267 A profile for IPv6 in the U.S. Government - Version 1.0, July 2008.

Configuration Option: SLAAC 

Test Specification Id:

[ Core-Conformance] IPv6 Ready Test Specification Core Protocols, Version 4.0.8, September 2018, [editor: IPv6 Ready Logo ].

Reference:

[RFC 4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, H. Soliman, Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6), RFC 4861, September 2007.

[RFC 4862] Thomson, S., T. Narten, T. Jinmei, IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, RFC 4862, September 2007.

SLAAC Applicable Test Check List

Reference Test Specification

Id Test Number Device

Type Passed

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.1.1 Address Autoconfiguration and Duplicate Address Detection Host/Router

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.1.2 Receiving DAD Neighbor Solicitations and Advertisements (A)(B)(C)(D) **Phase-1

Steps Only Host/Router

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.1.3 Validation of DAD Neighbor Solicitations (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J) **Phase-1

Steps Only Host/Router

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.1.4 Validation of DAD Neighbor Advertisements (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I) **Phase-1

Steps Only Host/Router

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.1.5 Receiving Neighbor Solicitations for Address Resolution (A)(B) Host/Router

NOTE: The following tests are considered a C(M) for the SLAAC Requirements as per the USGv6-v1 Profile.

RFC 4862 Section 5.5 Creation of Global Addresses

Reference Test Specification Id Test Number Device Type Passed

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.2.1 Global Address Autoconfiguration and DAD (A)(B)(C) Host/Router

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.2.2 Address Lifetime Expiry Host

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.2.3 Multiple Prefixes and Network Renumbering Host

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.2.4 Prefix-Information Option Processing (A)(B)(C)(D)(E)(F)(G)(H)(I)(J) Host

RFC 4862 Core-Conformance v6LC.3.2.5 Prefix-Information Option Processing, Lifetime (A)(B)(C)(D) Host

* The objective of this test selection sheet is to provide a reference for available test specifications that identifies tests applicable to the USGv6 Profile.
EXHIBIT 21


                       SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES

                     NATIONAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.


                                STATE OR
                                 OTHER
                              JURISDICTION
                                   OF               NAME UNDER WHICH
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY            INCORPORATION     SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
------------------            -------------     ------------------------

Interpretive Scoring            Minnesota        National Computer Systems, Inc.
 Systems, Inc.                                   NCS Assessments
                                                 Professional Assessment
                                                   Services Division of
                                                   National Computer
                                                   Systems, Inc.


Macro Educational               California       National Computer Systems, Inc.
 Systems, Inc.                                   Education Systems and
                                                   Services Division
                                                   of National Computer
                                                   Systems, Inc.




Note: No  other  subsidiary  of  National  Computer   Systems,  Inc.  meets  the
      conditions to be deemed a significant subsidiary.
# ir<N -/«f ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 01-13-00899-CR Antonio Bravo v. The State of 

## STYLE: Texas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM 

## OFFENSE: 31.07 (Unauthorized UseofVehicle) COUNTY: Harris TRIAL COURT: 183rd District Court 

### DATE: 10/23/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1375810



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: Antonio Bravo v. The State ofTexas 

# APfiBLLAMT7^ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE: 

# 9 JUDGE: 

# Cliffy** CCA#: 

# 1W-/¥ CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC: DNP:

MOTION FOR


### ELECTRONIC RECORD
11640.

#### McClure *v.*The State.

Decided July 28, 1920.

Indictment for assault and battery; from Carroll superior court — Judge Terrell. May 31, 1920.

*Boykin & Boykin,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. E. Roop, solicitor-general,*contra.

Luke, J.

The defendant was indicted for assault with intent to murder, and was convicted of the offense of assault and battery. There is some evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge.

The exception to the court’s failure to charge upon the law of circumstantial evidence is without merit, since the conviction of the defendant was not wholly dependent upon circumstantial evidence, and there was no timely request for such a charge.

The other exception to the charge of the court is without merit. ■ Eor no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new. trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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