alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11703.

#### MORRIS *v.*THE STATE.

A conviction of simple larceny was authorized by the evidence, from which it appeared that at the instance and direction of the defendant another person stole money from a trunk and gave it to the defendant, who was present aiding and abetting the act, and who on receiving the money secreted it and privately carried it away.

A principal in the second degree may be convicted under an indictment charging him as principal in the first degree.

Decided December 16, 1920.

Indictment for larceny; from Milton superior court — Judge Humphries presiding. May 22, 1920.

*Uowell Brooke, Olay & Blair,*for plaintiff in error.

*John T. Dorsey, solicitor-general, William Bull,*contra.

Luke, J.

The accused was convicted of simple larceny, and moved for a new trial upon the usual general grounds only. There was abundant evidence tending to show the larceny of $500 in money, as alleged; and that another person, at the instance and direction of the accused, actually stole the money from a trunk in which the owner was keeping it, and then and there gave it to the accused, who was present, aiding and abetting the act to be done, and who, with knowledge of all the facts, took the money, secreted it, and privately carried it away from the premises. The sole contention of counsel for the plaintiff in error is that, if any offense is shown by the evidence, it is not the offense of simple larceny, but is the offense of knowingly receiving stolen goods. A conspiracy to commit the alleged crime having been shown, the act of one conspirator, in furtherance of the common enterprise, became, in contemplation of the law, the act of both. And a principal in the second degree may be convicted under an indictment charging him as principal in the first degree. See Park’s Penal Code, § 42, and annotations under the catchwords “ Conspiracy ” and “ Indictment.” The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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

###### Small Business Administration

                    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) under Section 309 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, and Section 107.1900 of the Small Business Administration Rules and Regulations, SBA by this notice declares null and void the license to function as a small business investment company under the Small Business Investment Company                           ( print page 75227)                        License No. 06/06-0325 issued to Jefferson Capital Partners I, L.P.                

United States Small Business Administration.

Dated: December 10, 2014.

Javier E. Saade,

Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation.

[FR Doc. 2014-29517 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAKEISHA SHOOTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Civil No. 13-0455-CG-N

)

CITY OF MOBILE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order granting the Defendants’ motions for summary, 

it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in 

favor of Defendants City of Mobile and Sergeant Carla Shumock, and against 

Plaintiff, Lakeisha Shoots. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s claims 

against Defendants City of Mobile and Sergeant Carla Shumock are hereby 

DISMISSED with prejudice. Costs are to be taxed against the plaintiff.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00455-CG-N Document 87 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 October 2, 2005 (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 Wansem
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Paul J. van der Wansem
                                        President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Chairman of the Board of Directors
                                        (principal executive officer)

Dated: November 16, 2005


                                       22
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1968 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1968

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
          Injury Prevention and Control for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
          Injury Prevention and Control for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
              AND HUMAN SERVICES, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND 
              PREVENTION INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Health and 
Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Injury 
Prevention and Control for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$648,559,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Herbert FOY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden of the Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7574.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 22, 2001.

Decided June 5, 2001.

*229Herbert Foy, pro se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for appellee.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Herbert Foy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Foy v. Braxton,*No. CA-99-1863-AM (E.D.Va. Sept. 28, 2000). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements, Form S-8 No. 333-101121 -- Pactiv Corporation 2002 Incentive
Compensation Plan, Form S-8 No. 333-33484 -- Pactiv Corporation Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, and Form S-8 No. 333-90333 -- Tenneco Packaging Inc. Thrift Plan
for Hourly Employees and Tenneco Packaging Inc. Thrift Plan, of our report dated
January 21, 2004, except for Note 19, as to which date is March 15, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Pactiv
Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2003.

Ernst & Young LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 15, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MR. KERIUM ALLEN GARRICK, SR. #853734 -CFCF,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, (WARDEN (CFCF) MICHELLE FARRELL & WARDEN (D.C.) JOHN DELANEY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 105 EM 2014

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 12 th day of September, 2014, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Habea s Corpus are DISMISSED . See

Commonwealth v. Reid, 642 A.2d 453 (Pa. 1994) (hybr id representation not permitted).

The Prothonotary is directed to forward the filings to counsel of record.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for World Monitor Trust II--Series E
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>               0001090701
<NAME>              World Monitor Trust II--Series E
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          1,000

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,000

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,000

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      1,000

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,000

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    0

<EPS-BASIC>                   0

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 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
  1.
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
July 2, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    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/ Thomas P. Kealy

Thomas P. KealyVice President, Corporate Controller
and Chief Accounting Officer (principal
financial and accounting officer)
<PAGE>   1

                    FIDUCIARY CAPITAL PENSION PARTNERS, L.P.

                         STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET
                          INVESTMENT INCOME PER LIMITED
                                PARTNERSHIP UNIT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              For the Three Months          For the Nine Months
                                               Ended September 30,          Ended September 30,
                                            -------------------------     -------------------------
                                                1998         1997           1998            1997
                                            ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------
<S>                                         <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>       
Net Investment Income                       $   27,657     $  133,764     $   85,585     $  443,421

Percentage Allocable to Limited Partners            99%            99%            99%            99%
                                            ----------     ----------     ----------     ----------

Net Investment Income Allocable
   to Limited Partners                      $   27,380     $  132,426     $   84,729     $  438,987
                                            ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Weighted Average Number of Limited
   Partnership Units Outstanding             1,020,142      1,104,881      1,020,142      1,104,881
                                            ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========

Net Investment Income Per Limited
   Partnership Unit                         $      .03     $      .12     $      .08     $      .40
                                            ==========     ==========     ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOTITLE 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 Enzo Biochem, Inc., and
Subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Barry Weiner, 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:

| |                                                                                                                                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (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: March 12,
 2010 |  | By: | /s/ Barry Weiner                                                             
|                       |  |     |                                                                              
|                       |  |     | Barry Weiner                                                                 
|                       |  |     | Chief Financial
 Officer, Principal Accounting Officer,Treasurer and Director

---
#### Armstrong & Taylor *v.*William M. Reynolds.

Sale of Personal Property — Delivery—Unrecorded Mortgage.

A valid sale of growing tobacco may be made without delivery of actual possession where not susceptible of actual delivery.

*170Unrecorded Mortgage.

An unrecorded chattel mortgage made in good faith, not with a view to defraud other creditors, is valid between the parties and against all purchasers of the chattels described, having notice of the pledge or mortgage, except purchasers from a creditor who had no notice.

APPEAL PROM BRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 21, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

A valid absolute sale of the tobacco in contest in this case, might have been made without a delivery of the actual possession to the vendee, because the tobacco was growing in the field at the time the contract was made, and was, therefore, not susceptible of actual delivery. *Robbins v. Oldham,*1 Duvall 28; *Cummings v. Griggs & Hays,*2 Duvall 87; *Morton v. Ragan & Dickey,*5 Bush 334.

If the transaction was not a sale, but simply a mortgage or pledge to secure a debt due to the appellee, and to indemnify him as surety for Tapp, and was made in good faith, and not with a view to defraud the other creditors of the mortgagor or pledgor, it was valid between the parties to such transaction, and against all purchasers having notice of the pledge or unrecorded mortgage, except purchasers under the exception of a creditor who had no notice, such purchasers being protected notwithstanding they had notice, because of the innocence of the execution. An unrecorded mortgage is not void, as counsel for appellants seems to regard it, but is as valid as against persons having actual notice of its existence (with the exception just noticed) as if it had been recorded; *Morton v. Robards, et al.,*4 Dana 258; *Lowe*& *Whitney v. Blinco,*Mss. Opinion, September, 1874.

The appellant, Taylor, had actual notice of the bill of sale before he had the execution of himself and his partner levied on the tobacco, and was therefore in no condition, when sued for the conversion of the tobacco, to-resist appellee’s claim to it on the ground that the writing had not been recorded.

The only question in the case was whether the transaction was actually fraudulent, and this seems to us to have been correctly presented to the jury in the instructions given by the court.

Both the instructions asked by the appellant’s counsel were properly refused, the first because it assumed that there was a fraudulent intent of the parties, and that it was evidenced by the fact *171that appellee may have permitted Tapp to sell a part of the property named in the writing. The jury should have been left to decide whether that fact was evidence of a fraudulent intent. The reasons which justified the refusal to give the second instruction have already been given.

*John N.*Furber, *for appellants.*

*Thomas A. Currman, for appellee.*

Conceiving no error to the prejudice of the appellants, the judgment is *affirmed*with damages.
#### William Held, Appellant, *v.*Bryan L. Kennelly, Inc., Respondent, and James S. Gross, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 27, 1925.

Principal and agent — non-disclosure of principal — agent liable where he deals in his own name without disclosing name of principal.

An agent dealing in Ms own name is personally liable upon a contract where he fails to disclose the name of Ms principal. The liability is not changed though he be known to the other party as one who is usually employed in selling property as the agent for others.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the City of New York entered in favor of the defendant Bryan L. Kennelly,' Inc.

*Gustave Frey,*for the appellant.

*Bertram L. Kraus,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

A vendor or purchaser dealing in his own name, without disclosing the name of his principal, is personally bound by his contract, and it makes no difference that he is known to the other party to be an auctioneer, or broker, who is usually employed in selling property as the agent for others. *(Meyer*v. *Redmond,*205 N. Y. 478, 483; *DeRemer*v. *Brown,*165 id. 410, 419; 1 Williston Cont. 543.)

Judgment modified by striking out so much thereof as adjudges that the complaint be dismissed as against the defendant Bryan L. Kennelly, Inc., and by adjudging that plaintiff recover of the defendants James S. Gross and Bryan L. Kennelly, Inc., the sum of $2,125, with costs, and as so modified affirmed, with costs to appellant against respondent.

All concur; present, Guy, McCook and Proskauer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      11,803,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               48,174,000<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                               (8,826,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,151,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,151,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          537,000
<BONDS>                                      4,525,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    46,089,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,151,000
<SALES>                                      1,060,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,060,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                984,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   984,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes Notes Receivable of $38,710,000 and foreclosed real estate held for
sale of $8,730,000.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dewand Smith, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

— An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered on or about June 15, 2010, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.