alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11060.

#### Broyles *v.*The State.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Bibb superior court — Judge Mathews. September 30, 1919.

*J. F.*Urquhart, *W. A.*McClellan, for plaintiff in error.

*Charles H.*Garrett, *solicitor-general, John P. Ross,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The charge of the court in this case was full and fair, and when the excerpts complained of are read in connection with the remainder of the charge and in. the light of all the facts of the case, they contain no error that would require the grant of a new trial.

2. As far as pertinent and legal, each request to charge was sufficiently covered by the charge given.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict; the judge approved it, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., concurs.*

Luke, J.,

dissenting. I cannot concur with my colleagues in the holding that the charge in this case was *fair.*The court instructed the jury, among other things, that they would be authorized to find the defendant guilty' of murder, unless they believed “upon her other defense she was justified in believing that it was necessary to kill her (deceased), if she did kill her, in order to prevent adulterous intercourse or the resumption of adulterofis relation about to be resumed, and that' it was necessary and that the danger of such adulterous conduct between her husband and the deceased was imminent at the time.” It will be seen from this excerpt that the judge so qualified and limited his instruction as to make the justification of the accused for the alleged homicide depend upon whether or not “the danger of such adulterous conduct between her husband and the deceased was *imminent at the time."*This, in my opinion, was reversible error. In fact this court so held in the case of *Miller*v. *State,*9 *Ga. App.*599 (90 S. E. 970), wherein it is said:

“While a father cannot lawfully kill one merely because he has had unlawful sexual intercourse with his daughter, still he may justify the homicide by showing that it was necessary in order to prevent further acts of fornication. In a prosecution for homicide, where there is evidence such as to authorize the jury to find that the deceased had been maintaining illicit sexual relations with the defendant’s minor unmarried daughter, and had threatened to kill the father if he interfered, and that even after the father had be*18come apprised of what had taken place, and was taking guard to prevent the further debauching of his child, the defendant, in company with the daughter, came upon the deceased under such circumstances as to indicate that he was endeavoring to continue the illicit relationship, and would likely seek to do so notwithstanding the father’s protest, an instruction of the court to the jury in the following language was erroneous: The killing, if necessary, or apparently so to a reasonable mind, in order to protect the daughter at the time of the killing, would be justifiable. The killing must be necessary, or apparently so, to prevent the deceased from accomplishing his purpose then and there.’ The qualification contained in the words *‘*then and there ’ rendered the instruction erroneous.”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000840826
<NAME> DAKA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          13,449
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,152
<ALLOWANCES>                                       448
<INVENTORY>                                     11,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,609
<PP&E>                                         170,683
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,429
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,316
<BONDS>                                         95,558
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           111
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   253,429
<SALES>                                        194,817
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,870
<CGS>                                          170,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,318)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,243)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,070)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,070)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)
        

</TABLE>
#### Henrietta E. Cleaveland *v.*Geo. Fearns, Ex’r.

Parties — Transfer of Interest.

Where, pending a suit, the plaintiff transferred his right to the matter in controversy, the transferee should be brought in as a party before final judgment.

APPEAL PROM TRIMBLE CIRCUIT COURT.

June 15, 1773.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

In response ho the rule sued out by Fearns’ executor to enforce the payment of the sale bonds executed by Mrs. Willis, and upon which Mrs. Cleaveland was originally bound as surety, it was pleaded that Fearns’ executor had no right to the relief asked, because said bonds had been fully paid off and satisfied. Upon the trial of the motion it was proved by R. W. Masterson, the only witness sworn, that he was the attorne}*- for Fearns, and that as such he received nearly the entire amount due on these bonds, and paid it over before the rule was taken out. Also that the payment was made to Harriett M. Sewell and that the agreement with her was that upon the payment of the full amount the debt would be assigned and transferred to her with power and authority to enforce the same *3for her-benefit. The assignment had not then been made because a small balance remained unpaid.

*Stevenson, Myers, for appellant.*

Winston, *for appellee*

From this proof it was clear that Fearns’ executor had no right to enforce the collection of these bonds. He was not at the time the beneficial owner of them except to the extent of about one-tenth that remained unpaid to Mrs. Sewell. He had not contracted with Mrs. Sewell to have them collected for her benefit, but upon the contrary that she should have the right to enforce their collection when she chose to do so. Fearns’ executor did not pretend that he was acting for Mrs. Sewell, nor that he had even notified her of the action he was about to take.

The court had the power to permit the litigation to- proceed in the name of Fearns for Sewell’s benefit, but when the proof disclosed the fact that pending the action the right of Fearns had been transferred, Sewell, the transferee, should have been brought into court before final judgment was rendered, so that those being proceeded against by Fearns. would not be liable again to- be sued for the same debt by the real owner. For the error in rendering judgment in the then condition of the cause, the judgment of May, 1871, is reversed, so far as the appellant Cleaveland is concerned. As Fearns’ executor purchased at the execution sale, made under an execution issued on this judgment, such sale should be set aside, the judgment being erroneous and being reversed, the party in whose favor it was rendered can not hold to any rights acquired under it.

Wherefore the judgment of September, 1871, dismissing Mrs. Cleaveland’s petition is also reversed.

The two causes are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Judge Pryor did not sit in this case.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SIDNEY CLARK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION 16-0330-CG-C

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CRIMINAL NO. 10-00056-CG

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s rights were not violated in this 

cause and that his request to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence (see Docs. 147 

& 149) is due to be and hereby is DENIED. Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate 

of appealability and, therefore, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cr-00056-CG-C Document 155 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Heather Bresch, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A of Mylan 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|/s/ Heather Bresch           
|Heather Bresch               
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)
|Date: April 30, 2015
exv10w14xay



 






Exhibit 10.14(a)




JACK IN THE BOX INC.

RESTRICTED STOCK AWARDS

UNDER THE 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

SUMMARY AS OF OCTOBER 2, 2005




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Awardee	 	Number of Shares Awarded	 	Award Date
	John Hoffner
	 	 	55,000	 	 	November 8, 2002
	Linda Lang
	 	 	55,000	 	 	November 8, 2002
	Larry Schauf
	 	 	50,000	 	 	November 8, 2002
	Carlo Cetti
	 	 	29,600	 	 	November 8, 2002
	David Theno
	 	 	28,000	 	 	November 8, 2002
	Gary Beisler
	 	 	25,000	 	 	February 14, 2003
	Richard Pugh
	 	 	10,000	 	 	August 1, 2003
	Linda Lang
	 	 	35,000	 	 	September 10, 2004
	Jerry Rebel
	 	 	18,127	 	 	February 17, 2005
	Paul Melancon
	 	 	1,500	 	 	August 4, 2005
	Linda Lang
	 	 	10,000	 	 	September 16, 2005
	Jerry Rebel
	 	 	13,159	 	 	September 16, 2005
	Paul Schultz
	 	 	15,084	 	 	September 16, 2005
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1603 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1603

    To repeal provisions of Public Law 117-169 relating to taxpayer 
      subsidies for home electrification, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2023

  Mrs. Rodgers of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To repeal provisions of Public Law 117-169 relating to taxpayer 
      subsidies for home electrification, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Homeowner Energy Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. HOMEOWNER ENERGY FREEDOM.

    (a) In General.--The following are repealed:
            (1) Section 50122 of Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795a) 
        (relating to a high-efficiency electric home rebate program).
            (2) Section 50123 of Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795b) 
        (relating to State-based home energy efficiency contractor 
        training grants).
            (3) Section 50131 of Public Law 117-169 (136 Stat. 2041) 
        (relating to assistance for latest and zero building energy 
        code adoption).
    (b) Rescissions.--The unobligated balances of any amounts made 
available under each of sections 50122, 50123, and 50131 of Public Law 
117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795a, 18795b; 136 Stat. 2041) (as in effect on the 
day before the date of enactment of this Act) are rescinded.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 50121(c)(7) of Public Law 117-
169 (42 U.S.C. 18795(c)(7)) is amended by striking ``, including a 
rebate provided under a high-efficiency electric home rebate program 
(as defined in section 50122(d)),''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1650 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1650

  To allow certain qualified law enforcement officers and retired law 
 enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm to protect children 
                           in a school zone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

 Mr. Pfluger (for himself, Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Bacon, and Ms. Tenney) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To allow certain qualified law enforcement officers and retired law 
 enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm to protect children 
                           in a school zone.

    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 ``Police Officers Protecting Children 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND RETIRED LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ALLOWED TO CARRY A CONCEALED 
              FIREARM, AND DISCHARGE A FIREARM, IN A SCHOOL ZONE.

    Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
                    (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi); 
                and
                    (B) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix) 
                and inserting after clause (vi) the following:
                    ``(vii) by a qualified law enforcement officer (as 
                defined in section 926B) who is authorized under such 
                section to carry a concealed firearm, if the firearm is 
                concealed;
                    ``(viii) by a qualified retired law enforcement 
                officer (as defined in section 926C) who is authorized 
                under such section to carry a concealed firearm, if the 
                firearm is concealed; or''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(B)--
                    (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
                    (B) by striking the period at the end of clause 
                (iv) and inserting a semicolon; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(v) by a qualified law enforcement officer (as 
                defined in section 926B) who is authorized under such 
                section to carry a concealed firearm; or
                    ``(vi) by a qualified retired law enforcement 
                officer (as defined in section 926C) who is authorized 
                under such section to carry a concealed firearm.''.
                                 <all>
```
Affiliates Members

October 2023 

 

AFFILIATES

Lindsey Admire

Zachary Andrews

Christopher Bernhardt

Kathleen Boone

Andy Bowen

Devin Crago

Lorna Dawson

Hannah Dickson

Mary Eng

Robert Fitzpatrick

Susan Gross

Jack Hietpas

Wayne Isphording

Tammy Jergovich

Brad Lee

Andra Lewis-Krick

Moa Linden

Cheryl Lozen

Andria Mehltretter

Cyril Muehlethaler

Evie Nguyen

Sarah Padilla

Christine Pinto

Dincan Pirrie

Kari Pitts

Alastair Ruffell

Ted Schwartz

Candie Shegogue

Lara Steidel

Libby Stern 

Madeline Stricklin

Richard Thomas

Peter Weis

Jan-Eric Grunwald Christopher Palenik Michael Workman
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4632 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 19504 Linden Boulevard in St. Albans, New 

York, as the ‘‘Archie Spigner Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 4632 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 19504 Linden Boulevard in St. Albans, New 

4 York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Archie 

5 Spigner Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Archie Spigner Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
NOTICE FROM WILLIAM J. MORTIMER



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Bill Mortimer 
 Wolboldstrasse 35 
 71063 Sindelfingen 
 Germany 
  
 Mark McGrath 
 Chief Executive Officer 
 Datameg Corporation 
  
  
  
 December 12, 2005 
  
  
  
 Dear Mark, 
  
 I submit this letter of resignation
as General Manager of QoVox, the subsidiary of Datameg Corporation, effective on Friday, December 30, 2005. 
  
 I am grateful to you, Josh Davidson and my colleagues in QoVox for their dedication and contributions to try to make this business successful. 
  
  
  
 Kind regards, 
  
 /s/ Bill Mortimer 
  
 Bill Mortimer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1496 

To upgrade the communications service used by the National Weather Service, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

Mr. FEENSTRA (for himself, Mr. CARBAJAL, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Ms. 

BONAMICI, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mrs. HINSON, Mrs. GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N, 

Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. JACKSON of North Carolina, Ms. ROSS, Mr. 

LAMALFA, Mr. SORENSEN, Mrs. RADEWAGEN, and Mrs. FOUSHEE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To upgrade the communications service used by the National 

Weather Service, 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 ‘‘National Weather 

5 Service Communications Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE COMMUNICATIONS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title IV of the Weather Research 

8 and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017 (15 U.S.C. 8541 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1496 IH

1 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following 

2 new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 415. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE COMMUNICA4 TIONS. 

5 ‘‘(a) SYSTEM UPGRADE.—The Director of the Na6 tional Weather Service shall improve the instant mes7 saging service used by National Weather Service personnel 

8 by implementing a commercial off-the-shelf communica9 tions solution hosted on the public cloud to serve as a re10 placement for the communications system in use as of the 

11 date of the enactment of this section (commonly referred 

12 to as ‘NWSChat’). Such communications solution shall 

13 satisfy requirements set forth by the Director to best ac14 commodate future growth and perform successfully with 

15 increased numbers of users. 

16 ‘‘(b) FUNDING.—From amounts made available for 

17 Operations, Research, and Facilities, the Director of the 

18 National Weather Service shall allocate up to $3,000,000 

19 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2027 to carry out 

20 subsection (a). 

21 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON FUNDING.—Amounts made 

22 available to carry out subsection (a) shall be derived from 

23 amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to the 

24 National Weather Service.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1496 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents 

2 in section 1(b) of the Weather Research and Forecasting 

3 Innovation Act of 2017 is amended by inserting after the 

4 item relating to section 414 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 415. National Weather Service communications.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 



Loan Agreement


 


THIS AGREEMENT made on October 17, 2014


 


BETWEEN:


 


Illumitry Corp., Ayasa 53, Yerevan


 


Armenia, 0015 (“Corporation”)


 


OF THE FIRST PART


 


AND:


 


Arusyak Sukiasyan, Ayasa 53, Yerevan


 


Armenia, 0015 (“Arusyak”)


 


OF THE SECOND PART


 


WHEREAS:


 



	
1)  

	
Corporation requires funding in connection with business operations;








	
2)  

	
Arusyak has agreed to loan US$30,000 (the “Loan”) to Corporation, on certain terms and conditions contained herein;












NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that for and in consideration of the sum TEN DOLLARS ($10.00), and other goods and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 



	
a.  

	
Arusyak hereby agrees to loan US$30,000 (the “Loan”) to Corporation concurrent with the execution of the Agreement;








	
b.  

	
Loan funds advanced shell be non-interest bearing, secured and payable upon demand.








	
c.  

	
Any additional funds that Arusyak loans to Corporation subsequent to this Agreement shell be subject to the same terms as this Agreement, unless otherwise agreed in writing.








	
d.  

	
In accordance to the registration statement of Corporation, if the proceeds from the offering shares will not be sufficient, Arusyak will loan to Corporation needed funds to complete the registration process, implement business plan, and maintain reporting status and quotation on the OTC Electronic Bulletin Board.








	
e.  

	
Loan will be available for Corporation until Corporation will start to earn significant revenues, sufficient for ongoing operations and for payment of all expenses.








	
f.  

	
The repayment of Arusyak’s loan to Corporation will start when Corporation will earn significant revenues. The repayment will be made in accordance to loaned amount of funds by Arusyak to Corporation for the time period from inception till last loan.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their respective hands, both as of the day and year first above written.







Arusyak Sukiasyan / Illumitry Corp.


Authorized Signature


Date: October 17, 2014