alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William P. Hovald, Defendant in Error, v. Daniel H. Cunningham, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 15,265.

Appeals and *erbobs—when finding not disturbed.*Where the witnesses testified before the court the finding by the court will not be disturbed as against the evidence unless clearly and manifestly so.

Tort. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William W. Maxwell, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 2, 1910.

Ledbetter, Carpenter & Exter, for plaintiff in error.

Mather & Hutson, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Smith

delivered the opinion of the court.

By this writ of error a judgment against the plaintiff in error for $95 and costs in favor of the defendant in error is sought to be reversed. The record shows that the horse and wagon of defendant in error was injured in a collision with the automobile of plaintiff in error at the intersection of Sacramento avenue and Twelfth street in Chicago, May 8, 1908. The cause was tried before the court, without a jury. No question of law is raised by the record. The evidence is conflicting on the question of negligence. The witnesses were before the trial judge, who had the benefit of observing the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, and was, other things being equal, better qualified to pass upon their credibility than is a court of review from the mere reading of a statement of the substance of their testimony in the record. The findings of fact of the trial court, under such circumstances as appear in this record, will not be disturbed unless clearly and manifestly against the evidence. *135Bouton v. Cameron, 99 Ill. App. 600; Haug v. Haug, 193 Ill. 645. We have examined the testimony carefully and are unable to say that it so clearly preponderates in favor of the plaintiff in error as to justify a reversal. The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed.*
§ 300.28 Local educational agency. ( a ) General. Local educational agency or LEA means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or for a combination of school districts or counties as are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.
( b ) *Educational service agencies and other public institutions or agencies.* The term includes— ( 1 ) An educational service agency, as defined in § 300.12; and
( 2 ) Any other public institution or agency having administrative control and direction of a public elementary school or secondary school, including a public nonprofit charter school that is established as an LEA under State law.
( c ) *BIA funded schools.* The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not subject to the jurisdiction of any SEA other than the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only to the extent that the inclusion makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the LEA receiving assistance under the Act with the smallest student population.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(19))
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 Quarterly Report
of Nuance Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Karen Blasing, 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.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Karen Blasing                                        
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Karen Blasing ,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  | May 7, 2004
§ 667.5 Data time period, availability, and sources. ( a ) The beginning date for every evaluation under this part shall be January 1, 1997. The end date must be no earlier than December 31 of the year preceding the date on which the evaluation is due for completion. Evaluations should cover a longer period if useful data is reasonably available. Subject to the timing provisions in § 667.7, evaluations must include any road, highway, or bridge that, on or after January 1, 1997, required repair and reconstruction on two or more occasions due to emergency events.
( b ) State DOTs must use reasonable efforts to obtain the data needed for the evaluation. If the State DOT determines the necessary data for the evaluation is unavailable, the State DOT must document in the evaluation the lack of available data for that facility.
( c ) A State DOT may use whatever sources and types of data it determines are useful to the evaluation. Available data sources include reports or other information required to receive emergency repair funds under title 23, other sources used to apply for Federal or nonfederal funding, and State or local records pertaining to damage sustained and/or funding sought.
#### Arthur Dare, Defendant in Error, v. Chicago Horseman Newspaper Company, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 15,191.

New *trial—lohen newly discovered evidence ground for.*Newly discovered evidence which would have a strong tendency to affect the result of the suit, is ground for a new trial.

Assumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frank P. Sadler, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1909.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed February 3, 1911.

Scott, Bancroft & Stephens, for plaintiff in error.

Wyeth, Clark & Zollars, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Baldwin

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant in error recovered a judgment for $679.13 in the Municipal Court for damages for breach of contract of employment for six months at $125 per month. The employment of the plaintiff was conceded, but it was contended that he fraudulently misrepresented his qualifications for the position, and that his discharge for incompetency was lawful.

Plaintiff in error was publishing a newspaper, and advertised to procure a competent editorial writer for that kind of work. As evidence of his qualifications for the position, defendant in error submitted, in his own handwriting, two- articles, which were of such merit as to be largely influential in securing his employment. After two weeks of service he was .discharged for alleged incompetency, and paid $42.44 for the time he had been employed.

After the verdict, plaintiff in error endeavored to secure a new trial, based upon affidavits strongly tending to show that the two articles submitted in the handwriting of the defendant in error as his own, and which were largely influential in securing his employ*547ment, were not, in fact, the product of his own brain, but were copied very largely from The New York Herald.

Since the matter referred to in the affidavits would, if proven, have a strong tendency to affect the result of the suit, we think the court below should have granted a new trial upon the showing made, and the judgment is, therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.

*Reversed and remanded.*
1 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: )

)

RAHIM JOYCE, ) Case No. 17-13618-BFK

) Chapter 13

Debtor. )

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

This matter is before the Court on the U.S. Trustee’s Motion to Continue filed April 18, 

2018 (Docket No. 56). The Motion asks to continue the hearing scheduled for April 18, 2018 at 

11:00 a.m. The Court will continue the hearing to Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. for status.

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. The hearing is continued to Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. for status. The 

Court will set a hearing date and time for evidence and argument.

2. The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Rahim and will provide cm-ecf 

notice of the entry of this Order to the Chapter 13 Trustee and to the Office of the U.S. Trustee. 

Date: ________________ _______________________________

Brian F. Kenney

Alexandria, Virginia United States Bankruptcy Judge

Copies to

Rahim Joyce

10001 Georgetown Pike, #1170

Great Falls, VA 22066

Chapter 13 Pro Se Debtor

Thomas P. Gorman 

300 North Washington Street, Suite 400

Alexandria, VA 22314

Chapter 13 Trustee

Jack Frankel

Office of the U.S. Trustee

115 South Union Street, Suite 210

Alexandria, VA 22314

Counsel for the U.S. Trustee

Rick Rahim 

10001 Georgetown Pike, #1170

Great Falls, VA 22066

Apr 13 2018 /s/ Brian F. Kenney

Entered on Docket:April 13, 2018

Case 17-13618-BFK Doc 57 Filed 04/13/18 Entered 04/13/18 16:22:13 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
2 

Case 17-13618-BFK Doc 57 Filed 04/13/18 Entered 04/13/18 16:22:13 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
### **CHAPTER 74—PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS**

Sec.
1531.
Partial-birth abortions prohibited.
§ 33.7 Complaint. ( a ) On or after the date the Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), the reviewing official may serve a complaint on the defendant, as provided in § 33.8.
( b ) The complaint must state: ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against the defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons why liability allegedly arises from those claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the defendant may be held liable;
( 3 ) Instructions for filing an answer to request a hearing, including a specific statement of the defendant's right to request a hearing by filing an answer and to be represented by a representative; and
( 4 ) That failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint will result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments without right to appeal, as provided in § 33.10.
( c ) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she shall serve the defendant with a copy of the regulations in this part.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3803(a))
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-25-1998             APR-24-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-27-1997             APR-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-25-1998             APR-24-1999
<CASH>                                          16,518                  31,459
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,403                  58,057
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     36,136                  39,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               119,145                 132,555
<PP&E>                                          54,161                  53,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,270                 250,235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,949                  65,256
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     30,457                  35,229
<COMMON>                                             1                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (51,218)                (41,341)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,270                 250,235
<SALES>                                        217,907                 248,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                          139,174                 159,209
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   77,118                  68,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,159                  19,854
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,536)                   2,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (610)                 (2,112)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,926)                   4,317
<DISCONTINUED>                                   9,646                  10,716
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,464)                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,744)                  15,033
<EPS-BASIC>                                (15,202.08)                9,474.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                8,445.44


</TABLE>
§ 303.124 Data collection. ( a ) Each statewide system must include a system for compiling and reporting timely and accurate data that meets the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section and §§ 303.700 through 303.702 and 303.720 through 303.724.
( b ) The data system required in paragraph (a) of this section must include a description of the process that the State uses, or will use, to compile data on infants or toddlers with disabilities receiving early intervention services under this part, including a description of the State's sampling methods, if sampling is used, for reporting the data required by the Secretary under sections 616 and 618 of the Act and §§ 303.700 through 303.707 and 303.720 through 303.724.
(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0550, 1820-0557 and 1820-0578) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1416, 1418(a)-(c), 1435(a)(14), 1442)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 94381 / March 8, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-19816

In the Matter of

BitClave PTE Ltd.,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER SETTING 

ADMINISTRATOR’S BOND

AMOUNT

On May 28, 2020, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist 

Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings, and 

Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (the “Order”)1against BitClave PTE Ltd. (the 

“Respondent”). In the Order, the Commission found that from June 2017 through November 

2017, BitClave offered and sold securities in the form of digital tokens, known as Consumer 

Activity Tokens (“CAT”), to fund the development of a blockchain-based search platform for 

targeted consumer advertising. As a part of this process, BitClave conducted an initial coin 

offering (“ICO” or the “Offering”) in which it raised approximately $25.5 million through the 

issuance of CAT. By its conduct, the Commission found that Respondent violated Sections 5(a) 

and 5(c) of the Securities Act by offering and selling securities without having a registration 

statement filed or in effect with the Commission or qualifying for an exemption from 

registration. 

 

1

 Securities Act Rel. No. 10788 (May 28, 2020).
2

The Commission ordered the Respondent to pay a total of $29,344,197.00 in 

disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties to the Commission, pursuant to a 

payment plan detailed therein. The Commission also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 

308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty paid, along with the disgorgement and 

interest paid, can be distributed to harmed investors (the “Fair Fund”).

On April 22, 2021, the Commission issued an order that appointed Kurtzman Carlson 

Consultants (“KCC”) as the fund administrator and set the bond at $10,000,000.00.2 Since that 

time, an additional $2,000,000.00 has been collected in this matter. 

The Fair Fund now consists of the $12,000,000.00 paid by the Respondent, and any 

additional funds paid by the Respondent and/or otherwise collected in this matter pursuant to the 

Order, will be added to the Fair Fund.

The Division of Enforcement now requests that the administrator’s bond be set at 

$12,000,000.00. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that KCC obtain a bond in accordance with 

Rule 1105(c) of the Commission’s Rules,3in the amount of $12,000,000.00.

For the Commission, by the Division of Enforcement, pursuant to delegated authority.4

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary 

 

2

 See Order Appointing Fund Administrator and Setting Bond Amount, Exchange Act Rel. No. 91647 (Apr. 22, 

2021).

3

 17 C.F.R. § 201.1105(c).

4

 17 C.F.R. § 200.30-4(a)(17).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 71752 / March 19, 2014

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-14594

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of : ORDER GRANTING

CREDIT SUISSE ALTERNATIVE : EXTENSION OF TIME

CAPITAL, LLC (f/k/a CREDIT : TO SUBMIT PROPOSED

SUISSE ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL, : PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION

INC.), CREDIT SUISSE ASSET :

MANAGEMENT, LLC, and :

SAMIR H. BHATT, : 

:

Respondents. :

____________________________________:

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested a fourth order for an 

extension of time, until September 15, 2014, to submit a proposed plan of distribution 

in the above-captioned matter, under Rule 1101(a) of the Commission Rules on Fair 

Fund and Disgorgement Plans. In its request, the Division states that the violations in 

this matter arise in connection with the same conduct alleged in SEC v. Citigroup 

Global Markets Inc. (the “Citigroup action” or the “civil action”) (11-cv-7387), a 

settled case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,

which settlement was rejected by the Court and the case set for trial on July 16, 2012. 

The SEC appealed the trial court’s rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 

Circuit (“Second Circuit”), and a stay was entered on March 15, 2012 pending 

resolution of the appeal.1 Oral arguments were heard before the Second Circuit on 

 

1

See United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Docket No. 

11-05227 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2011).
2

February 8, 2013. As of March 19, 2014, the Second Circuit has not reached a 

decision.

The Division intends that the funds paid by the Respondents in this

administrative proceeding be combined with any funds paid by Citigroup Global 

Markets in the civil action for distribution to injured investors once a final judgment in 

the civil action is entered. Because the Division is unable to plan for the distribution 

of the combined funds until after a final judgment is entered in the civil action, the 

Division seeks an extension of time to submit the proposed plan of distribution until 

after a final judgment in the civil action has been entered. 

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Division’s request for an extension of time until September 15, 2014, to submit a 

proposed plan of distribution is granted. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Lynn M. Powalski

Deputy Secretary
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-0679

Lower Tribunal No. CF18-006320-XX

_____________________________

JOSE BERMUDEZ,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Lori A. Winstead, Judge.

August 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Jose Bermudez, Chipley, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
### §781. Taking or catching, in waters of Gulf or Straits of Florida, commercial sponges of less than prescribed size, and landing or possession of same

It is unlawful for any citizen of the United States, or person owing duty of obedience to the laws of the United States, or any boat or vessel of the United States, or person belonging to or on any such boat or vessel, to take or catch, by any means or method, in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the Straits of Florida outside of State territorial limits, any commercial sponges measuring when wet less than five inches in their maximum diameter, or for any person or vessel to land, deliver, cure, offer for sale, or have in possession at any port or place in the United States, or on any boat or vessel of the United States, any such commercial sponges.

(Aug. 15, 1914, ch. 253, §1, 38 Stat. 692.)
#### In the Matter of CALPA PRODUCTS COMPANY, Bankrupt.

No. 27804.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Nov. 3, 1967.

*104Zion, Charen & Blount, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner.

Samuel Marx, Philadelphia, Pa., referee.

MEMORANDUM

FULLAM, District Judge.

In this bankruptcy proceeding, the petitioner, Peter Zion, Esq., asserted a claim for counsel fee and disbursements in connection with legal services performed on behalf of the bankrupt estate. The Referee denied the claim for counsel fees, and awarded only a small portion of the reimbursement of costs claimed, and the matter is now before this court for review of the Referee’s decision.

Our scope of review is limited. While the “clearly erroneous” test is not applicable, we are required to sustain the Referee’s findings if there is evidence in the record sufficient to form a reasonable basis for the findings. In re Arbycraft Co., 288 F.2d 553 (3d Cir. 1961); In re Calpa Products Company, 249 F.Supp. 71 (E.D.Pa.1965).

The petitioner claims that by reason of his efforts, the fees claimed by other counsel in the matter, representing the receiver, the bankrupt and the trustee, were reduced, thus saving the estate more than $2,000; and that by reason of his efforts to cause the disallowance of certain creditors’ claims, these claims were subordinated. It may be noted in passing that the subordination of claims would seem to be of greater interest to the other creditors, whom the petitioner also represented, than to the estate.

 The Referee held that the petitioner could not be paid a counsel fee by the estate, since he had never been appointed by the court. General Order No. 44, 11 U.S.C.A. following § 53, contains explicit provisions to that effect. The Referee was quite clearly correct. In re National Tool & Mfg. Co., 209 F.2d 256 (3d Cir. 1954). The Referee found, with respect to disbursements, that the disallowed portion of these disbursements arose in connection with fruitless attempts to obtain appellate review by the Supreme Court of the United States and that these appeals had never been authorized or joined in by the trustee. There is ample evidence to support these findings, and we have no alternative but to affirm the Referee’s decision.