alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*11231.*

#### Ward *v.*The State.

Luke, J.

1. “ The idea of prevention, or defense against an impending or progressing wrong, must enter into all cases of justifiable homicide. To deliberately kill in revenge for a past injury, however heinous, after reason has had time to resume its sway, can not be justifiable.” *Mize*v. *State, 135 Ga.*291 (3.) (69 S. E. 173).

2. “ One against whom, or whose wife, an offense, no matter how heinous, has been committed, can not in law be justified ‘ in taking vengeance in his own hands and in deliberately seeking out and following up the wrong-doer and slaying him.” *Perry*v. *State,*102 *Ga.*365 (10) (30 S. E. 903).

3. “Section 75 of the Penal Code is not applicable to cases of homicide where the defense relied upon is self-defense.” *Ripley*v. *State,*7 *Ga. App.*679 (2) (67 S. E. 834).

4. Upon the trial of the instant case there was no evidence, and nothing in the defendant’s statement, to show that the deceased was killed to prevent him from making a forcible attack upon or invasion of the defendant’s property or habitation, or to prevent an assault upon any member of the defendant’s family. On the contrary, the defendant, in his statement and by the testimony of his witnesses, attempted to show that the killing was *solely*in defense of the defendant’s person and life. The undisputed evidence shows that the deceased was brought from his (the deceased’s) house by the defendant, and that the killing took place in the public road in front of the defendant’s house, and at that tim'e the deceased was not making an effort to enter the defendant’s premises, or attempting any forcible attack upon or invasion thereof, or attempting to injure any member of the defendant’s family. Under these circumstances sections 72, 74, and 75 of the Penal Code (1910 were not applicable, and the court properly omitted to charge them.

5. The court properly omitted to charge section 76 of the Penal Code (1910), the jury having been fully instructed upon the law of justifiable ' homicide and its effect upon the verdict. *Worley*v. *State;*136 *Ga.*231 (4) (71 S. E. 153).

*297Decided May 11, 1920.

Reheabing denied July 14, 1920.

Indictment for murder — conviction of manslaughter; from Houston superior court — Judge Mathews. December 13, 1919.

*B. J. Fowler, John R. Cooper,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles H. Garrett, solicitor-general, Herbert Clay,*contra.

6. The excerpt from the charge of the court upon the subject of impeachment of -witnesses was adapted to the particular facts of the case, and was not erroneous for any reason assigned.

7. The charge upon the law of voluntary manslaughter was amply authorized by the evidence.

8. The other excerpts from the charge, as complained of in the motion for a new trial, contain no error.

9. The verdict rvas authorized by the evidence, and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,

J ustices 

# Order

December 10, 2010

138636

SHERRI MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138636 COA: 280267 Emmet CC: 05-009021-NH DAVID LEDINGHAM, M.D., DAVID RYNBRANDT, M.D., ANDRIS KAZMERS, M.D., and PETOSKEY SURGEONS, P.C., Defendants,

and

NORTHERN MICHIGAN HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On October 6, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2009 judgment of the C ourt of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgmen t of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Emmet Circuit Court for entry of an order denying the defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Because the plaintiff’s expert witness testified at his deposition that, if the nurses had timely informed th e treating physician of the plaintiff’s deteriorating condition, the standard of care would have required the treating physician to treat the plaintiff differently than he did, while the treating phys ician averred in his affidavit that he would not have treated the plai ntiff any differently than he did even if the nurses had timely informed him of the plaintiff’s deteriora ting condition, a question of

material fact exists that must be resolved by a jury. That is, having presented expert testimony regarding the treatment that the pl aintiff, pursuant to the standard of care,

should have received in the fi rst 72 hours post-surgery, the treating physician’s averment that he would have acted in a manner contrary to this standard of care presents a question of fact and an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve. See White v Taylor Distributing
Co, 482 Mich 136, 141 (2008) (A qu estion of material fact existed for the jury to decide because the defendant’s deposition testimony that he “felt great” be fore he blacked out was called into question by the defendant’s treating physicians’ deposition testimony thatI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 10, 2010

1209 2

the “defendant’s condition would have caused ongoing symp toms such as cramps and pain.”). We agree with the assertion in Judge G LEICHER ’s concurring opinion in Ykimoff v W.A. Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App 80, 121, 124 (2009), that th e Court of Appeals “incorrectly decided Martin, ” and that “plaintiff’s expert testimony called into question the credibility of the surgeons’ a ffidavits by asserting that the standard of care applicable to the affiants required swifter intervention.”
EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Alan
  Gold, certify that:1.
I have
  reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of U.S. Neurosurgical, Inc.;2.
Based on my
  knowledge, this quarterly 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
  quarterly report;3.
Based on my
  knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
  in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;4.
I am
  responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
  procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-15e) for the
  registrant and I have:a)
designed
  such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
  relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
  known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period
  in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
evaluated
  the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as
  of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
  (the Evaluation Date); andc)
presented in
  this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
  disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the
  Evaluation Date;5.
I have
  disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors
  and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
  performing the equivalent function):a)
all
  significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
  which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
  summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
any fraud,
  whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
  a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and6.
I have
  indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant
  changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
  affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation,
  including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
  material weaknesses.  Date: March
  30, 2007
/s/ Alan
  GoldAlan GoldPresident


---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6228

WILLIS ANDREA JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

G. J. HAYNES; MRS. ST. LOUIS; MRS. DUFAULT;

MR. ZOOK,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-393-BO)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willis Andrea Jones, Appellant Pro Se. James Philip Allen, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Willis Andrea Jones appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

Jones’ motion for appointment of counsel, and we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Haynes, No. CA-01-

393-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 8, 2003; entered Jan. 10, 2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NUMBER 13-13-00640-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

JOSE TORRES JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 404th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Jose Torres Jr., has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his 

conviction in trial court cause number 2012-DCR-1236-G. The trial court's certification 

of the defendant's right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 
2

On November 25, 2013, we ordered appellant's counsel, Juan Jose Martinez, to, 

within thirty days, review the record and advise this Court as to whether appellant has a 

right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3, 44.4. No response to this Court's order has 

been received. Therefore, we ABATE this appeal and REMAND this cause to the trial 

court for a hearing to determine why counsel has failed to comply with this Court's order. 

The trial court's findings and conclusions shall be included in a supplemental clerk's 

record. The trial court shall file the supplemental clerk's record and reporter's record, if 

any, with the Clerk of this Court within thirty days of the date of this order.

If the trial court determines that counsel is unable to represent appellant in this 

matter, the trial court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to 

prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, and whether appellant is entitled to 

appointed counsel. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83-84 (1988); Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We further direct the trial court to issue 

findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding these issues. Should the trial court find 

that appellant desires to pursue this appeal, is indigent, and is entitled to appointed 

counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel. If counsel is appointed, the name, address, 

telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the trial 

court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

12th day of February, 2014.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as President and Chief Executive Officer of BTU International, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:



| | 1. | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2009 (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 for the periods covered by the
Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Paul J. van der WansemPaul J. van der WansemPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors (principal executive officer)


Dated: May 8, 2009
No. 87-1537.

#### Crowley *v.*New Hampshire Personnel Commission.

Sup. Ct. N. H. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1675 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1675

 To provide a set-aside of funds for the territories under the health 
 profession opportunity grant program under section 2008 of the Social 
Security Act, to make the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
            eligible for the grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2023

Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon (for herself, Ms. Plaskett, Mr. Moylan, Mr. Sablan, 
 and Mrs. Radewagen) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide a set-aside of funds for the territories under the health 
 profession opportunity grant program under section 2008 of the Social 
Security Act, to make the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
            eligible for the grants, 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 ``Territory Health Revitalization 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SET-ASIDE FOR THE TERRITORIES.

    Section 2008(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1397g(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``5 percent of which for each 
fiscal year shall be reserved for grants to States other than the 50 
States and the District of Columbia'' before the period.

SEC. 3. ELIGIBILITY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA 
              ISLANDS.

    Section 2008(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1397g(a)(4)) is amended by striking subparagraph (E).

SEC. 4. GUARANTEE OF GRANTEES IN THE TERRITORIES.

    Section 2008(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1397g(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) Guarantee of grantees in the territories.--
                The Secretary shall award at least 2 grants under this 
                subsection to an eligible entity that is located in a 
                territory, to the extent there are a sufficient number 
                applications submitted by such an eligible entity that 
                meet the requirements of subparagraph (B).''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on October 1, 
2023.
                                 <all>
```
NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-144-2022 PAGE: 1 of 1

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National 

Institute of Standards and Technology National

Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

January 28, 2022

LAB BULLETIN

NUMBER: LB-144-2022

LAP: ECT

SUBJECT: Revision of the Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada 

Program Specific Checklist 150-11B, ECT: ISED Telecommunications Terminal Equipment, 

Radio Apparatus and Broadcasting Equipment

The purpose of this bulletin is to notify laboratories of the revision to the NVLAP Innovation, 

Science and Economic Development (ISED) Canada program specific checklist, NIST Handbook 

150-11B, ECT: ISED Telecommunications Terminal Equipment, Radio Apparatus and 

Broadcasting Equipment.

Notice

The NIST Handbook 150-11B program specific checklist, ECT: ISED Telecommunications 

Terminal Equipment, Radio Apparatus and Broadcasting Equipment has been revised based on 

the ISED Testing Laboratory Technical Assessment Checklist (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smtgst.nsf/eng/sf11383.html) that was released on October 21, 2021.

Laboratories may have the checklist completed by the NVLAP assessor at a regularly scheduled 

renewal assessment. 

Laboratories wishing to add RSS-102 Measurement Localized Power Density (LPD) to their scope 

of accreditation are required to have an assessment during which the NVLAP assessor will 

complete the relevant portions of this revised checklist. 

Use of this checklist is effective immediately, and supersedes the previous version dated 

December 4, 2018. The current checklist can be found on the NVLAP website at 

https://www.nist.gov/nvlap/electromagnetic-compatibility-and-telecommunications-lap.

Questions should be directed to Amanda McDonald, Amanda.McDonald@nist.gov or Janneth 

Marcelo, Janneth.Marcelo@nist.gov.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BOYD E. HORTON, :

 :

Plaintiff, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-0659-BH-M

 :

JACK TILLMAN, et al., :

 :

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 Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED

as the opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that this action be

and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to

prosecute and to obey the Court's Order.

DONE this 29th day of March, 2006.

s/ W. B. Hand

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00659-BH-M Document 6 Filed 03/29/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


          Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Century Pacific Tax
Credit Housing Fund II (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ IRWIN J. DEUTCH
--------------------------
Irwin J. Deutch
August 14, 2002
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 on Form 10-K of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC (the
"Companies") for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Kimo Esplin, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

/s/ J. KIMO ESPLIN J. Kimo Esplin Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 19, 2010


---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For Revocation of Probation or Supervised Release)

v.

Case Number: 1:13-CR-00205-003

THOMAS CAMPBELL USM Number: 07626-003

a/k/a Thomas Lavon Campbell, Jr. Latisha V. Colvin, Esquire

Defendant’s Attorney

THE DEFENDANT:

admitted guilt to violation of conditions 7 and two special conditions of the terms of supervision as set forth in Petition dated 

1/29/2016.

was found in violation of condition(s) after denial of guilt.

The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these violations:

Violation Number Nature of Violation Violation Ended

7

Special Condition

Special Condition

Technical

Technical

Technical

The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 2 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984.

The defendant has not violated condition(s) ________________________ and is discharged as to such violation(s) condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall notify the United States Attorney for this district within 30 days of any 

change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are 

fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States Attorney of material changes in 

economic circumstances.

 

August 25, 2016

Date of Imposition of Judgment

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

Signature of Judge

CALLIE V. S. GRANADE

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Name and Title of Judge

August 26, 2016

Date

Case 1:13-cr-00205-CG-B Document 182 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 2
AO 245D (SDAL 01/16) Judgment in a Criminal Case Judgment -- Page 2 of 2

DEFENDANT: THOMAS CAMPBELL, a/k/a Thomas Lavon Campbell, Jr.

CASE NUMBER: 1:13-CR-00205-003

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of:

THIRTY-SIX (36) MONTHS.

The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:

at a.m. p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:

before 2 p.m. on 

as notified by the United States Marshal.

as notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as follows:

Defendant delivered on to 

at , with a certified copy of this judgment.

UNITED STATES MARSHAL

By 

DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Case 1:13-cr-00205-CG-B Document 182 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2