alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPREME COURT — APPELLATE DIVISION — SECOND DEPARTMENT.

March 14, 1919.

#### THE PEOPLE v. MIKE NOVIK.

(186 App. Div. 877.)

Appeal—Record stipulated by dependant to be true and correct cannot BE CONTRADICTED BY HIM.

Where a defendant appeals from a judgment of the County Court affirming as modified a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions, convicting him of the crime of petit larceny, and stipulates that the record is true and correct, he cannot contend that he did not plead guilty as stated in said record or did not understand the proceedings or that the interpreter did not properly perform his duty.

Appeal by the defendant, Mike Hovik, from so much of an order of the County Court of Westchester county, entered in the office of the clerk of said county on the 26th day of April, 1918, as affirms as modified a judgment of a Court of Special Sessions convicting him of the crime of petit larceny.

*Elias Rosenthal,*for the appellant.

*Thomas A. McKennell, Assistant District Attorney (Lee Parsons Davis, District Attorney,*with him on the brief), for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The record before this court contains a notice of defendant’s appeal from an order of the County Court of Westchester county, affirming, as modified, a judgment of a Court of Special Sessions in that county. A police justice in a village “ may *429hold a Court of Special Sessions therein and shall have in the first instance exclusive jurisdiction to hear, try and determine charges of a misdemeanor committed within such village and triable by a Court of Special Sessions.” (Village Law [Consol. Laws, ch. 64; Laws of 1909, ch. 64], § 182.) There is no separate Court of Special Sessions in the village of Hastings-on-Hudson. The record contains an information charging the defendant with the crime of petit larceny. (Penal Law, § 1298.) The crime was triable before a Court of Special Sessions. (Code Crim. Pro., § 56.) The record shows the arraignment of the defendant before the police justice. Witnesses were examined. The defendant pleaded guilty, and the justice holding a Court of Special Sessions accepted the plea and imposed the sentence which as modified has been affirmed by the County Court. The objections sought to be urged, that defendant did not plead guilty or did not understand the proceedings', or that the interpreter did not properly perform his duty, are not available upon this appeal, which comes before this court upon a record which defendant stipulates is true and correct.

The order of the County Court of Westchester county is, therefore, affirmed.

Jehks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Blackmab and Kelly, JXL, concurred.

Order of the County Court of Westchester county affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-21164 Conference Calendar

ALI REZA DADI; ET AL., Plaintiffs, ALI REZA DADI, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LYNN N. HUGHES, U.S. District Judge; MICHAEL T. FLOREANS; JAMES BUCHANAN; BRIAN T. MOFFATT; JACK ZIMMERMAN, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-02-CV-3276

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ali Reza Dadi, federal prisoner No. 59270-079, and his wife Carmen appeal the dismissal as frivolous of a civil rights complaint seeking damages for an alleged conspiracy to obtain the wrongful civil forfeiture of their home following Ali Reza Dadi’s conviction for bank fraud and money laundering offenses. We findNo. 02-21164 -2-

** 512 U.S. 477 (1994). no abuse of discretion in the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous. For the first time on appeal, the Dadis argue that the forfeiture was wrongful because Ali Reza Dadi was an innocent owner of the property; that the forfeiture violates principles of double jeopardy; and, alternatively, that Carmen Dadi and the Dadi’s three children were innocent owners of the property. Absent exceptional circumstances that implicate the interests of justice, we generally do not review issues not raised in the district court. Kinash v. Callahan , 129 F.3d 736, 739 n.10 (5th Cir. 1997). Our review of issues raised for the first time on appeal is limited to errors that are “plain” and that “affect substantial rights.” See United States v. Caverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Dadi’s claim that he is an innocent owner implicates the validity of his conviction and is thus barred by Heck v. Humphrey
. ** The in remforfeiture of Dadi’s house will not support a double jeopardy claim. United States v. Ursery , 518 U.S. 267, 288 (1996); United States v. Garcia Abrego , 141 F.3d 142, 173-74 (5th Cir. 1998). The “innocent owner” claim of Carmen Dadi and the Dadis’ children is based on evidence not presented to the district court. As the district court did not have an opportunity to consider this issue, the error, if any,No. 02-21164 -3- cannot have been “plain.” Robertson v. Plano City of Texas , 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995). This appeal is without arguable merit, and it is DISMISSED
AS FRIVOLOUS. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The Dadis are WARNED that future frivolous appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions.
DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
#### § 105-56.022 Fees.

Agencies that perform centralized salary offset computer matching services may charge a fee sufficient to cover the full cost for such services. In addition, FMS, or a paying agency acting on behalf of FMS, may charge a fee sufficient to cover the full cost of implementing the administrative offset program. FMS may deduct the fees from amounts collected by offset or may bill GSA. Fees charged for offset will be based on actual administrative offsets completed and may be added to the debt as an administrative cost.
-cr-06240-WPD Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2001 P
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 

PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, made and entered into effective as of January 22, 2017, amends that certain PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT dated
August 25, 2016 (the “Agreement”) by and between PDC TN/FL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Purchaser”), and Dover Motorsports, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Nashville Speedway, USA, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (collectively, the “Seller”). 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the parties wish to provide for a sixty (60) day extension of the Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	The Inspection Period in Section 4.4 is revised to be 210 days from the Effective Date; Section 4.7 is revised so that the reference to 150 days now reads 210 days; and Section 4.3 is revised so that the
reference to 90 days now reads 210 days. 

  

	 	3.	Except as modified above, the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date. 

 

							
	PURCHASER:	 		 	 PDC TN/FL, LLC,
 a Delaware limited
liability company

				
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Whitfield Hamilton
		 		 		 	Whitfield Hamilton, Local Partner
			
	SELLER:	 		 	 NASHVILLE SPEEDWAY, USA, INC.,
 a
Delaware corporation

				
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Klaus M. Belohoubek
		 		 		 	 Klaus M. Belohoubek,
 Senior Vice President
– General Counsel

			
		 		 	 DOVER MOTORSPORTS, INC.,
 a Delaware
corporation

				
		 		 	By:	 	/s/ Klaus M. Belohoubek
		 		 		 	 Klaus M. Belohoubek,
 Senior Vice President
– General Counsel



  
 1
DARRELL SHANTA JENKINS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4339

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 9, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Michael G. Allen, Judge.

Darrell Shanta Jenkins, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., CONCUR.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALLIS-CHAlMERS
     AS OF AND FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
     QUALIFIED IN ITS' ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
     STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         123
<SECURITIES>                                   303
<RECEIVABLES>                                  498
<ALLOWANCES>                                   21
<INVENTORY>                                    70
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,108
<PP&E>                                         2,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          68,556
<BONDS>                                        250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       8,307
<OTHER-SE>                                     (75,671)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (2,392)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,695
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                620
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            620
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .62
        


</TABLE>
§ 102-75.520 What must the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services address in the assignment recommendation that is submitted to the disposal agency? Any assignment recommendation that ED or HHS submits to the disposal agency must provide complete information concerning the educational or public health use, including— ( a ) Identification of the property;
( b ) The name of the applicant and the size and nature of its program;
( c ) The specific use planned;
( d ) The intended public benefit allowance;
( e ) The estimate of the value upon which such proposed allowance is based; and
( f ) An explanation if the acreage or value of the property exceeds the standards established by the Secretary.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,422
<SECURITIES>                                    14,972
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,642 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,140
<INVENTORY>                                    137,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,732
<PP&E>                                         281,962 
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,922
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 864,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          235,420
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        427
<COMMON>                                         1,996
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   864,940
<SALES>                                        288,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,953
<CGS>                                          224,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (204)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,676
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,208
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,240
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        

</TABLE>
§ 301-54.100 Are there any due process requirements with which my agency must comply before collecting undisputed delinquent amounts on behalf of the charge card contractor? Yes, your agency must: ( a ) Provide you with written notice of the type and amount of the claim, the intention to collect the claim by deduction from your disposable pay, and an explanation of your rights as a debtor;
( b ) Give you the opportunity to inspect and copy their records related to the claim;
( c ) Allow an opportunity for a review within the agency of its decision to collect the amount; and
( d ) Provide you with an opportunity to make a written agreement with the contractor to repay the delinquent amount of the claim.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

***RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE***
   --------------------------------


THIS  STATEMENT  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT
OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER  30,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.


</LEGEND>
<CIK>                      0000003941
<NAME>                     ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                             503
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                     68,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,242
<PP&E>                                          97,225
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 199,360
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,107
<BONDS>                                            344
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           140
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,360
<SALES>                                        213,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,497
<CGS>                                          160,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  160,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,989
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   106
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,227
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,035
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,192
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,192
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30



</TABLE>
#### § 109-27.5106 Precious metals pool.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 819 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 819

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 1999

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize appropriations for the Federal Maritime Commission for 
                      fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

    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 ``Federal Maritime Commission 
Authorization Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FEDERAL MARITIME 
              COMMISSION.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Federal Maritime 
Commission--
            (1) for fiscal year 2000, $15,685,000; and
            (2) for fiscal year 2001, $16,312,000.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 16, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32

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 of Patapsco Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as added by Section 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 as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Michael J. DeeName: Michael J. DeeTitle: President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ William C. Wiedel, Jr.Name: William C. Wiedel, Jr.Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: January 28, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d- 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Bernard M. Gordon, Executive Chairman of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: December 11, 2006



| |  |                              
| |  | -----------------------------
| |  | /s/ Bernard M. Gordon        
| |  | Bernard M. Gordon            
| |  | Executive Chairman           
| |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 301-51.102 How is my transportation reimbursement affected if I make an unauthorized cash purchase of common carrier transportation?

If you are a new employee or an invitational or infrequent traveler who is unaware of proper procedures for purchasing common carrier transportation, your agency may allow reimbursement for the full cost of the transportation. In all other instances, your reimbursement will be limited to the cost of such transportation using the authorized method of payment.

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15968, Apr. 1, 1998; 63 FR 35538, June 30, 1998]