alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### B. F. Madsen v. State of Nebraska.

Filed April 5, 1895.

No. 5701.

a. Briefs: Waiver or Error. Assignments in a petition in error not argued in the brief of the plaintiff in error will he considered waived.

32. Criminal Law: Errors. During Trial: Review. In order to obtain a review of alleged errors occurring during the trial the attention of the district court must he challenged to the same in a motion for a new trial, and such alleged errors must he specifically assigned in the petition in error.

Error to the district court for Douglas county. Tried below before Davis, J.

*Ira C. Bachelor*and *Silas Cobb,*for plaintiff in error.

*George H. Hastings, Attorney General,*for the state.

Norval, C. J.

An indictment was returned to the district court of Douglas county, charging the plaintiff in error, as a member of the city council of the city of Omaha, with having solicited a bribe. A verdict of guilty was returned, wheretupon a motion for a new trial was filed, alleging:

1. The verdict was not sustained by the evidence.

2. The verdict is contrary to law.

*6323. Newly discovered evidence, material to the defendant,, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial.

4. Surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.

The motion for a new trial was overruled by the court,, and the plaintiff in error was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and the costs of prosecution.

The petition in error alleges the following errors:

1. In refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

2. In giving the first, second, and third instructions^ and each of them.

3. The overruling of the motion for a new trial.

4. In permitting testimony to be given before the jury-over the objection of the plaintiff in error.

In the brief filed by counsel of plaintiff in error, none of the errors assigned in the petition in error are relied uport for a reversal of the judgment. Again, it will be observed that not one of the grounds contained in the motion for a» new trial is embodied in the petition in error. Owing to the-peculiar condition of the record indicated above, no proposition is presented to this court for review. It has morethaft once been held that assignments in a petition in error not argued in the brief will be considered waived. *(Scott v. Chope,*33 Neb., 41; *Brown v. Dunn,*38 Neb., 52; *Phenix Ins. Co. v. Reams,*37 Neb., 423; *Gill v. Lydick,*40 Neb., 508; *Glaze v. Parcel,*40 Neb., 732.) It is a well established rule that in order to obtain a review of alleged errors occurring during a trial, the attention of the trial court must be challenged to the same in a motion for a new trial, and such alleged errors must be specifically assigned in the petition in error. *(Tecumseh Town Site Case,*3 Neb., 267; *McCormick v. Drummed,*9 Neb., *384; Tomer v. Densmore,*8 Neb., 384; *Shaffer v. Maddox,*9 Neb., 205; Birdsall v. *Carter,*11 Neb., 143; *Lowe v. City of Omaha,*33 Neb., *633587; *Dillon v.*State, 39 Neb., 92; *Haverly v. Elliott,*39 Neb., 206.) The judgment is

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
<MULTIPLIER>           1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             328
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                       132
<INVENTORY>                                      3,433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,759
<PP&E>                                           6,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,398
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,606
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,361)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,406
<SALES>                                          3,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,198
<CGS>                                            2,446
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      580
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (13)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     58
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 58
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        58
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 Emtec, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sam
Bhatt, Vice President of Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
'SS' 1350, as adopted pursuant to 'SS' 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 result of operations of the
     Company.

                                               /s/ Sam Bhatt
                                               Vice President of Finance
                                               February 14, 2005
INCHES

Have you seen the

Asian 

Longhorned 

Beetle?

Report it.

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 1-866-702-9938

www.beetlebusters.info United States Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

die-cut 

hole
1-866-702-9938

www.beetlebusters.info

Frass (wood 

shavings) on 

bark or at the 

base of tree

Have you seen these signs of the 

Asian Longhorned Beetle?

Search for signs year round.

Round exit 

holes in 

trees

Capture beetles, 

take photos, and 

report sightings at

Scar from 

egg sites 

on bark

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer. Issued February 2011 

Slightly revised June 2012

Program Aid No. 2068

die-cut 

hole
124A16

#### Jillian Murray v. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

1. Defs Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Dissent (COA15-375)

1.-

2. Defs PDR as to Additional Issues

2. Allowed
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1059 

CAF 11-01092 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, FAHEY, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF KENDALL L. DANNER, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHAD NEPAGE, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

-----------------------------------

THEODORE W. STENUF, ESQ., ATTORNEY

FOR THE CHILD, APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE (H. DANA VAN HEE OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

THEODORE W. STENUF, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, MINOA, APPELLANT PRO SE. 

SHIRLEY A. GORMAN, BROCKPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeals from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County

(Kimberly M. Seager, J.), entered March 24, 2011 in a proceeding

pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the

petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Danner v NePage ([appeal No. 3] ___ AD3d

___ [Nov. 9, 2012]).

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# Comments on: 18-1793: IGNITE USA, LLC v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
No. 11-1142.

#### O’nan *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00427-CR

Bobby J. PORTER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR5248

Honorable Joey Contreras, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed.

SIGNED April 17, 2019.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
No. 11-8884.

#### Jackson v. Epps, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### IN THE MATTER OF JOHN KIRBY.

(Supreme Court Disciplinary Nos. 683, 720, 721)

(447 SE2d 414)

Per curiam.

Respondent John Kirby has petitioned for voluntary surrender of his license to practice law in the State of Georgia. His petition is based upon his admissions of fact and conduct in violation of Standard Nos. 4, 21, 22, 23, 44, 61, 63, 65 and 68 of State Bar of Georgia Rule 4-102.

Respondent, in his petition, requests that this Court accept his voluntary surrender of his license to practice law.

In light of the above and in view of the recommendation of the Review Panel that Respondent be allowed to surrender his license to practice law, it is directed that he be allowed to surrender his license. Before any reinstatement petition is granted, he must comply with the reinstatement rules of the State Bar of Georgia in effect at such time.

*448Decided September 29, 1989.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Paul B. Cohen, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Application for voluntary surrender of license is granted.

*All the Justices concur.*
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4252

To designate the Administrator of the Small Business Administration as

a member of the Interagency Trade Organization.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 19, 1994

Mr. LAFALCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To designate the Administrator of the Small Business Administration as a member of the Interagency Trade

Organization.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 Section 242 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19

4 U.S.C. 1872) is amended by inserting before the penul5 timate sentence in subsection (a) the following:

6 ‘‘(G) The Administrator of the Small Busi7 ness Administration.’’.

Æ
dvn-ex1032_1989.htm



Exhibit 10.32

Amendment 2016-2

to the

devon energy corporation

incentive savings plan

The Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan (the "Plan") is amended, effective April 22, 2016, as follows:

1.A new Paragraph (4) is added to Section 4.01(a) of the Plan ("Elections"), immediately after Paragraph (3) and immediately before the current Paragraph (4), and subsequent sections and cross-references are amended accordingly, such new Paragraph to read as follows:

"(4)Each Eligible Employee as of February 19, 2016 (other than any Eligible Employee who will cease to be employed by reason of the reduction in force announced by the Company in February 2016) who (A) is determined by the Committee or its delegate, in accordance with uniform and nondiscriminatory procedures, to have elected to contribute to the Plan as Salary Deferrals and/or Roth Contributions a percentage of Compensation that is less than the maximum percentage of Matching Contributions for which the Eligible Employee is eligible under Section 4.05(a) and (B) does not otherwise make an affirmative election to the contrary, shall be deemed to have made an election, effective April 22, 2016, to contribute a percentage of his or her Compensation (other than Compensation attributable to his annual discretionary performance bonus) to the Plan as Salary Deferrals (or as Roth 401(k) Contributions if the Eligible Employee has an election in effect as of February 19, 2016 to designate 100% of his Salary Deferrals as Roth 401(k) Contributions) that is equal to the maximum percentage of Matching Contributions for which the Eligible Employee is eligible under Section 4.05(a); provided, however, that if the Committee or its delegate determines in accordance with uniform and nondiscriminatory procedures that the Eligible Employee is expected to reach the limit described under Section 5.01(a) before December 31, 2016, the Eligible Employee shall not be deemed to have made an election to change his contribution percentages under this Paragraph."

[remainder of page intentionally blank]

 

1



DB1/ 86570183.4

 

 

 
 


 

In witness whereof, Devon Energy Corporation (acting through its authorized delegate) has caused this Amendment 2016-2 to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan to be executed this 29th day of March, 2016.

DEVON ENERGY CORPORATION

 

By:  _/s/ Frank W. Rudolph______________________

Name:  Frank W. Rudolph

Title:  Executive Vice President, Human Resources

[Signature Page to Amendment 2016-2 

to the Devon Energy Corporation Incentive Savings Plan]



DB1/ 86570183.4
No. 10-10890.

#### Cook *v.*West Virginia.

Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS,  INC. FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
FEBRUARY  28,  1998  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          1,265,041
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     173,508
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                     1,784,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,246,397
<PP&E>                                          2,942,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,998,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  4,194,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           1,219,740
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           89,259
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,509,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    4,194,495
<SALES>                                        20,324,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20,324,782
<CGS>                                          15,904,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15,904,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,366,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 45,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    65,469
<INCOME-TAX>                                       17,577
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                47,892
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       47,892
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.053
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.053
                                              


</TABLE>
#### Vincent Monti *vs.*Providence Journal Company.

APRIL 22, 1963.

Present: Condon, C. J., Roberts, Paolino, Powers and Frost, JJ.

*176Condon, C. J.

This is an action of trespass on the case for libel. On June 12, 1962 a justice of the superior court filed a rescript sustaining the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s second amended declaration. Endorsed on the rescript is the notation “6/12/62 Attorneys of Record Notified.” The plaintiff claims such notification was not received by his counsel. Accordingly he filed a petition pursuant to G. L. 1956, §9-4-8, praying for “leave to file a notice of intention to file a bill of exceptions out of time.” After a hearing thereon this petition was denied and the plaintiff excepted to such denial. The case is here on his bill of exceptions containing that single exception.

Under §9-4-8 “whenever any appeal, shall not be entered according to law, the court to which the same is returnable may, in case of accident, mistake or unforeseen cause, in its discretion, allow the same to be entered with or without terms * * As we understand plaintiff’s position, he contends that the trial justice abused his discretion in not allowing notice of intention to be filed on the showing made in support of the prayer therefor. Such showing consisted *177solely of the following joint affidavit of counsel: “We, Aram K. Berberian and William G. Grande, on oath make affidavit and say that we have represented the plaintiff in the above entitled case, that we had no knowledge of the entry of the court’s rescript on 12 June 1962, and that we received no copy or notice thereof at any time to date.” There is no transcript of any testimony and apparently none was taken in the superior court to show on what other ground, if any, plaintiff relied to prove “accident, mistake or unforeseen cause” prescribed in the statute.

*Grande & Grande, Aram K. Berberian,*for plaintiff.

*Edwards & Angelí, Edward F. Hindle,*for defendant.

Assuming without deciding that §9-4-8 is an applicable remedy in the circumstances set out in the petition and the accompanying affidavit, the only question before us is whether the trial justice abused his discretion in denying the petition. In the absence of any testimony in support thereof and resting our conclusion solely on the meager record before us we are clearly of the opinion that he did not. But even if we were of a contrary opinion it seems to us that it would avail plaintiff nothing. This would be necessarily so since to allow him merely to file a notice of intention out of time, which is all that plaintiff prayed for, would still leave him without an exception to the decision. That notice cannot be construed as such an exception. *Vassar*v. *Lancaster,*30 R. I. 221.

The plaintiff’s exception to the decision denying his petition is overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

Frost, J., did not participate in the decision.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

LUTHERKURTZ and SKYDIVE COASTAL CALIFORNIA d/b/a PHOENIX AREA SYDIVING, Complainant,


### v. CITY OF CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA, Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-16-01

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcementProceedings, 14 CFRpart 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR part 16, subpart B, the date by whichthe Director's Determination will be issued inthis matter is hereby extended to April14, 2017. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination inthis case due to the complexity ofthe Record.

or, Airport Compliance

anagement Analysis

# 4.~('!14,1017 DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that onFebruary 14,2017, I FedX a true copy ofthe foregoing document addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Mr. Richard J. Durden 27987 Richmond Hill Road Conifer, CO 80433 Counsel for Respondent: Brett D. Wallace City Attorney's Office 51 0 E. Florence Blvd CasaGrande, AZ 85122 Copies to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, ACO-l00 FAA Western Pacific Region, AWP-600

# /!ttw{/1/~·---.,· Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Andrea Electronics Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Christopher P.
Sauvigne, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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.

                                                /s/ Christopher P. Sauvigne
                                                ----------------------------
                                                 Christopher P. Sauvigne
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                August 19, 2002

                                      -30-