alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT, ONONDAGA TRIAL TERM,

DECEMBER, 1900.

#### Gardner Wells, Plaintiff, *v.*The Herald Company, Defendant.

Motion by defendant for a new trial.

William Nottingham, for motion.

E. W. Parsons, opposed.

Hiscock, J.

The motion for a new trial is granted upon the ground that the jury were not properly and sufficiently instructed upon the subject of punitive damages.

It is urged that the recent case of Krug v. Pitass, 162 N. Y. 154, has overruled the prior cases, of which there were many, holding that, under proper circumstances, punitive damages might be based upon proof simply of the publication of an article false and libelous *per se.*Assuming, however, that, as has been suggested in very recent decisions, it was not the intention of the Court of Appeals to go to that extent, but that punitive damages may still be awarded, without proving express malice, in a case where an article has been published false and libelous *per*se, and of such a character as to fairly warrant the inference that it was published wantonly, recklessly, or without due investigation as to its truth, I am still inclined to think that this motion should be granted. The instructions upon the subject were too general, and not sufficient to properly call to the attention of the jury the conditions and qualifications under which they might award such damages. This is independent of the further ground urged upon this motion that under his complaint plaintiff is not entitled to demand exemplary damages.

Motion granted.
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ArrowResources Development, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended on June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Frugone, Principal Accounting 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 my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(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.

 

 

Date: August 20, 2012
#### Moon *v.*Butler & Co.

*Detinue.*

(Decided. June 12, 1913.

62 South. 1019.)

*Appeal and lilrror; Assignment; Form and Requisite.*— A separate piece of letter paper containing the business card of an attorney attached to a page of the transcript by pasting the left hand margin thereon is not a part of the record, and is not a compliance with the requirements that the assignments of error shall be written on the record or transcript.

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Alston.

Detinue by J. E. Butler & Co., against G. P. Moon. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed for want of assignment of error on tbe record.

Turner Petty, for appellant.

Counsel discusses tbe errors attempted to be assigned with citation of authority in support of bis contentions, but in view of tbe opinion, it is not deemed necessary to here set them out.

Spragins & Speaks, for appellee.

After discussing tbe merits of tbe appeal, with citation of authority, counsel insist that there is not such an assignment of error on tbe record as will authorize this court to review tbe *cause.*— Pugh *v.*Hardeman, 151 Ala. 248.

PELHAM, J. —

Tbe appellee in brief filed cites tbe ruling of tbe Supreme Court as to wliat constitutes an assignment of errors on tbe record, and invokes tbe ruling of this court on this point, insisting that tbe assignment in this case is not sufficient to authorize a review of tbe errors assigned. Tbe transcript shows *439that the only assignment of errors attempted is set out on a separate piece of letter paper, containing the business card of appellant’s counsel printed or embossed upon it. This separate sheet of paper is attached to a page of the transcript by pasting the left-hand edge thereof to such page. Under the holdings of the Supreme Court this is not an assignment of errors on the record, and there must be an affirmance for failure to assign *errors.*— Pugh *v. Hardman,*151 Ala. 248, 44 South. 389; *Hunter v. L. & N. R. R. Co.,*150 Ala. 594, 43 South. 802, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 848.

We may state, however, that an examination of the record shows that the assignments undertaken to be made are without merit.

Affirmed.
#### § 311.7 General Counsel certification.

For every meeting or portion thereof closed under § 311.5 or § 311.6, the Corporation's General Counsel will publicly certify that, in the opinion of such General Counsel, the meeting may be closed to the public and will state each relevant exemptive provision. In the absence of the General Counsel, the next ranking official in the Legal Division may perform the certification. If the General Counsel and such next ranking official in the Legal Division are both absent, the official in the Legal Division who is then next in rank may provide the required certification. A copy of this certification, together with a statement from the presiding officer of the meeting setting forth the time and place of the meeting, and the persons present, will be retained in the Board's permanent files.

[42 FR 14675, Mar. 16, 1977, as amended at 61 FR 38357, July 24, 1996]
# Official Journal C 204A/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.204.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 204A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5618 July 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.CA2013.204.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 204A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5618 July 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2013/C 204A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/234/12 (grade AD 7) — Conference interpreters for Croatian (HR) | 1 |
| 2013/C 204A/02 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AST/121/12 — Conference Technicians (AST 3) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2013/C 204A/01

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AD/234/12 (grade AD 7) — Conference interpreters for Croatian (HR)

1

2013/C 204A/02

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AST/121/12 — Conference Technicians (AST 3)

2

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2013/C 204A/03 | Corrigendum to the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/235/12 — Croatian-language (HR) Lawyer-linguists (AD7) (OJ C 182 A, 27.6.2013) | 3 |

Corrigenda

2013/C 204A/03

Corrigendum to the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/235/12 — Croatian-language (HR) Lawyer-linguists (AD7) (OJ C 182 A, 27.6.2013)

(OJ C 182 A, 27.6.2013)

3

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OJs

Please find below the list of C A published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, OJs are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 27 | (RO) |
| 29 | |
| 33 | |
| 34 | |
| 36 | (DA) |
| 41 | (BG) |
| 43 | (EN) |
| 49 | (ET) |
| 50 | (HU) |
| 51 | (SL) |
| 54 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 58 | (EN/GA) |
| 75 | |
| 81 | |
| 82 | |
| 88 | (BG) |
| 89 | (CS) |
| 94 | |
| 104 | |
| 109 | |
| 111 | |
| 112 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 117 | (ET) |
| 118 | |
| 120 | |
| 131 | |
| 143 | |
| 160 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 162 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 168 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 176 | (BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV) |
| 180 | (MT) |
| 182 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 183 | (IT) |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 196 | |
| 197 | |
| 199 | |
| 200 | |
| 204 | (DE/EN/FR) |

5

27

(RO)

29

33

34

36

(DA)

41

(BG)

43

(EN)

49

(ET)

50

(HU)

51

(SL)

54

(DE/EN/FR)

58

(EN/GA)

75

81

82

88

(BG)

89

(CS)

94

104

109

111

112

(DE/EN/FR)

117

(ET)

118

120

131

143

160

(DE/EN/FR)

162

166

167

168

172

173

174

176

(BG/DE/EN/ET/FI/IT/LT/LV/MT/NL/PL/PT/SK/SL/SV)

180

(MT)

182

(DE/EN/FR)

183

(IT)

191

192

193

194

196

197

199

200

204

(DE/EN/FR)

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7081

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERON FITZGERALD JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:05-cr-00076-JPJ-RSB-1; 1:12-cv-80543-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: November 10, 2014 Decided: November 13, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deron Fitzgerald Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. 

Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Deron Fitzgerald Jones seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders 

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.30

                  First Amendment to Asset Purchase Agreement

          This First Amendment to Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Amendment") is
                                                                 ---------
dated May 31, 2001, by and between Four Star Acquisition Company, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Buyer") and Four Star Lighting, Inc., a New
                                     -----
York corporation ("Seller"), to amend that certain Asset Purchase Agreement
                   ------
dated as of April 19, 2001, between Buyer and Seller (the "Agreement").
                                                           ---------
Section 9.9 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in full as follows:

           "9.9  Assignment.  This Agreement shall not be assignable or
                 ----------
       otherwise transferable by Buyer or Seller without prior written consent
       of the other; provided, however, that from and after the Closing, Seller
       shall have the right to assign this Agreement to any person (it being
       understood and agreed that no such assignment by Seller pursuant to this
       proviso shall relieve Seller of any of its obligations hereunder); and
       provided, further, Buyer shall have the right to assign its rights under
       this Agreement and its rights under any Assigned Contracts to one or more
       institutional lenders and/or to a trust or similar entity controlled by
       Buyer."

       Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the terms and provisions
of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. Upon the execution of this
Amendment by both parties hereto, this Amendment shall become a part of this
Agreement.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Buyer have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed as of the date first above written.

                                Four Star Acquisition Company, LLC

                                By: /s/ Robert A. Manners
                                   ----------------------
                                Name: Robert A. Manners
                                Title: Vice President

                                Four Star Lighting, Inc.

                                By: /s/ Ellen Gordon
                                   -----------------
                                Name: Ellen Gordon
                                Title: Estate Representative
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

EDWARD KEITH DEMBRY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

DON HUDSON, Warden, USP 

Leavenworth, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 21-3016 

(D.C. No. 5:20-CV-03279-JWL) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and EID, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________ 

Proceeding pro se, Petitioner Edward Dembry filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition 

in the District of Kansas. This application is one of a series of collateral attacks 

Dembry has filed on his conviction, including at least three § 2255 applications; a rule 

60(b) motion, which was construed as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 

application; a Motion for Audita Querela, which was again construed as a § 2255 

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

May 6, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

motion; six § 2241 applications raising § 2255 claims; and many appeals therefrom. 

All of Dembry’s attempts to obtain post-conviction relief have been unsuccessful. 

In the present petition, Dembry raises many of the same claims he raised in his 

prior collateral attacks. Specifically, he argues the sentencing court misclassified him 

as an armed career criminal and thereby erroneously enhanced his sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e). He also argues he is actually innocent in light of Rehaif v. United 

States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). In a well-reasoned order, the district court competently 

explained why Dembry’s claims properly arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because 

Dembry did not show §.2255 is inadequate or ineffective, the court correctly declined 

to consider the merits of his claims and dismissed the petition. 

For the purpose of resolving this appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the 

district court record and Dembry’s appellate brief. We discern no reversible error. 

Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose in 

writing at length. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we 

AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order 

dismissing Dembry’s § 2241 petition. Dembry’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

is GRANTED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                   SUBSIDIARIES OF MTI TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  JURISDICTION OF
                   SUBSIDIARY                      INCORPORATION
                   ----------                     ---------------
<S>                                               <C>
MTI Technology GmbH                                Germany
MTI Technology Limited                             Scotland
MTI France SA                                      France
Microtechnology Scandinavia, AB                    Sweden
MTI Technology Ireland Ltd.                        Ireland
MTI Technology BV                                  Holland
MTI Technology SA                                  Switzerland
MTI Technology Europe                              Ireland
MTI Technology S.A.                                Belgium
SI Computer Systems, Ltd.                          UK
SI Network Storage Canada, Ltd.                    Canada
MTI Technology Ireland, Ltd.                       Ireland
MTI Technology B.V.                                Holland
MTI Technology S.A.                                Switzerland
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants

        As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
    incorporation by reference of our reports dated November 3, 1997,
    included in or incorporated by reference into ThermoLase Corporation's
    Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 1997, into
    the Company's previously filed Registration Statements as follows:
    Registration Statement No. 33-88396 on Form S-8, Registration Statement
    No. 33-88398 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-88394 on Form
    S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-88400 on Form S-8, Registration
    Statement No. 33-80749 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-84516
    on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-94658 on Form S-3,
    Registration Statement No. 333-19633 on Form S-4, Registration Statement
    No. 333-34467 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement No. 33-94658 on
    Form S-3.

                                                Arthur Andersen LLP

    Boston, Massachusetts
    December 2, 1997
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, November 3, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at 1 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: October 1, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. E9-24096 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and CFO                 
|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 on Form 10-Q of Davidson Growth Plus, L.P. (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: August 14, 2008  
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: August 14, 2008  





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NO. 07-06-0030-CR

	NO. 07-06-0031-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 4, 2006

	______________________________

	DAWNA MILLER MAULDIN, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

	NO. 6633 & 6634; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Following pleas of not guilty, appellant Dawna Miller Mauldin was convicted by the trial court of two counts of theft of trade secrets.  Punishment was assessed at ten years confinement, suspended for 10 years, and a $5,000 fine, which was not suspended.  Appellant timely perfected these appeals.  

	The District Clerk of Gray County filed a motion for extension of time in which to file the clerk’s records indicating appellant had not paid nor made arrangements to pay for the records.  The court reporter notified the Clerk of this Court that appellant’s counsel had instructed him not to prepare the reporter’s records because counsel anticipated filing a motion to dismiss the appeals.  Appellant’s counsel notified the Clerk of this Court in mid- March that he would file a motion to dismiss in early April.  To date neither the clerk’s records nor reporter’s records have been filed and the deadlines for doing so have expired.  Neither has a motion to dismiss been filed.  By letter dated April 17, 2006, this Court directed counsel to either file the appellate record or a motion to dismiss by April 28, 2006, noting that failure to do so might result in dismissal.  Counsel did not respond.

	Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a directive from this Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3.

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice

Do not publish.