alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hillsborough,

No. 4481.

#### Jean A. J. Chretien, *Adm’r v.*Romeo L. Duhaime.

Argued May 1, 1956.

Decided July 6, 1956.

*256*Chretien & Chretien {Mr. Jean A. J. Chretien*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Bois & Bois*and *Broderick, Manning & Sullivan {Mr. Manning*orally), for the defendant.

Lampron, J.

Emma Duhaime died before the effective date of RSA 384:28-32 and therefore this case is not controlled by that statute. *Bradley*v. *State,*100 N. H. 232. Defendant’s main contention is summarized in his brief as follows: “The error we charge to the Court is that he found for the plaintiff because he believed and ruled that the burden was on the defendant to prove that he was entitled to keep the money withdrawn from the bank account. We maintain that the Court should have nonsuited the plaintiff because he failed to prove an implied promise by the defendant to repay the money.”

As to withdrawals made during the lifetime of the deceased the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that they were such as to create an obligation on the defendant to repay them instead of being in payment of a debt owed the defendant by his mother or a gift to him by her. *Barrett*v. *Cady,*78 N. H. 60, 67; *Harriman*v. *Bunker,*79 N. H. 127, 131. The evidence warranted the Court’s finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover these amounts. They could be found to have been payments of her board and room, or gifts.

Even though the action be in assumpsit (see *Barrett*v. *Cady, supra,*65) the withdrawal of the balance in the joint account made by the defendant after the death of his mother is governed by the principles in *Dover &c. Bank*v. *Tobin,*86 N. H. 209; *Nashua Trust Co.*v. *Mosgofian,*97 N. H. 17; *Cournoyer*v. *Bank,*98 N. H. 385. The plaintiff was seeking to recover money which it is admitted by the defendant was at one time the sole property of the deceased. *257Its deposit in a joint account in her name and that of Romeo was insufficient in itself to give him any ownership or interest in it. *Cournoyer*v. *Bank, supra,*391. It continued to be and was the property of the deceased and the plaintiff was entitled to it, unless the actions of the deceased were effective to create a joint tenancy therein during her lifetime. *Id.,*388.

The burden of overcoming the “presumption in this jurisdiction against an intention to create joint interests in personal property” was upon Romeo. *Dover &c. Bank*v. *Tobin, supra,*210. He had the burden of proving all the elements of a valid gift, being all the facts essential to the validity of a gift *inter vivos,*as ruled by the Trial Court. *Nashua Trust Co.*v. *Mosgofian, supra,*18.

The evidence did not compel a finding that the deceased intended to confer upon the defendant an equal right not only to withdraw funds from the account but also to “appropriate the money withdrawn.” *Cournoyer*v. *Bank, supra.*The action of the Court being supported by the evidence and his rulings of law being proper the order must be

*Judgment on the verdict.*

All concurred.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 JUNE 29, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-12085

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-00054-CR-ORL-18-DAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERGIO A. LINARES,

a.k.a. Edgar,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(June 29, 2011)

Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Sergio A. Linares a/k/a “Edgar” appeals his 121-month total sentence,
imposed at the low end of the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to

one count of possession with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(vii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

On appeal, Linares argues that the district court erred in denying a reduction in his

offense level for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, even

though the court imposed a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement.

We review the district court’s determination per U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for clear

error. United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1022 (11th Cir. 2005). Because

the district court’s determination regarding a defendant’s acceptance of

responsibility is entitled to great deference, we will not set aside the district court’s

decision that a defendant is not entitled to a downward reduction for acceptance of

responsibility unless the record clearly establishes that the defendant accepted

responsibility. Id. at 1022-23.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Linares was not entitled

to a downward reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Although Linares pled

guilty, he had absconded for more than five years prior to making that guilty plea,

and he admitted at the sentencing hearing that part of his remorse was that he had

been caught after absconding. The district court could reasonably determine that

Linares’s conduct between his indictment and his return to custody was not

2
consistent with acceptance of responsibility.

Furthermore, the district court did not plainly err in determining that Linares

was not entitled to an acceptance of responsibility reduction. Although the district

court did state that Linares would be entitled to an acceptance of responsibility

reduction, the court did not calculate Linares’s applicable guideline range at the

hearing or then determine what sentence Linares would receive. The plea

agreement made clear that the court was not bound by the government’s

recommendations regarding any sentencing recommendations and, in fact, could

reject those recommendations, including the recommendation regarding a threelevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

AFFIRMED.

3
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard De Young, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of FoxHollow Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of BSML, Inc.

Date: April 6, 2007



|    |  |                                             
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Richard De Young                        
|    |  | Richard De Young                            
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|    |  | (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### State of Florida ex rel. Robert W. Orrell, *Relator,*vs. Ed Johnson et al., as constituting the Board of Bond Trustees of Ocean Shore Improvement District, and Doyle E. Carlton, et al., as and constituting the State Board of Administration of the State of Florida, and as and constituting the State Board of Administration of Ocean Shore Improvement District, and W. V. Knott, as ex-officio County Treasurer of Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida, *Respondents.*

143 So. 128.

Division B.

Order entered July 16, 1932.

*Waller & Pepper*and *Paul W. Harvey,*for Relator;

*Gary D. Landis,*Attorney General, *H. E. Garter,*Assistant Attorney General, *Francis P. Whitehair*and *Hull, Landis & Whitehair,*for Respondents.

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the respondents’ demurrer to and motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus herein, and the court having heard the arguments of counsel, and considered the briefs filed by the respective parties, and being now advised of its order to be made in the premises on said demurrer and motion to quash, it is thereupon:

Ordered and adjudged that the demurrer of the respondents to the alternative writ of mandamus, and the respondents’ motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus, be and the same are hereby severally over*209ruled, Avith privilege to respondents to file such return to the alternative writ of mandamus as they may be advised is proper to be made, or to stand upon the return to the alternative Avrit already tendered and filed. Relator and respondents shall have the privilege of filing briefs herein after any appropriate motion or proceeding for disposition of the cause upon the alternative Avrit and return, said briefs to be filed within the periods of time and in the form prescribed by the rules of this court concerning briefs generally.

It is so ordered.

Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur. •
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2012 

t0124 

Order 

 

January 27, 2012 

143780 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 143780 

 COA: 298299 

Wayne CC: 09-011819-FH 

ANTHONY BROOKS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE, as dicta, the portion of the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals that addressed the trial court’s decision to upwardly depart from the 

sentencing guidelines. Because the Court of Appeals granted defendant a new trial, 

defendant’s challenge to his sentence was rendered moot. The Court of Appeals’ 

discussion of this issue also wrongly left the impression that a departure sentence of life 

may only be imposed on a habitual offender when the sentencing offense is murder or a 

Class A felony. See MCL 769.12(1). We express no opinion, however, whether the 

extent of the trial court’s sentencing departure was justified under People v Smith, 482 

Mich 292 (2008). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED because we are not 

persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 MARILYN KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal.
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 Annual Report of Celadon Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), on Form 10-K/A for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Paul A. Will, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
      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 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.
















Date:
      October
      27, 2005 /s/
      Paul A.
      Will


Paul A. Will


Chief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and


Assistant
      Secretary




Back
      to Form
      10-K/A
§ 80.68 Facilities requirements for public coast stations using telegraphy. Public coast station using telegraphy must be provided with the following facilities. ( a ) Stations having a frequency assignment below 150 kHz must: ( 1 ) Transmit A1A emission on at least one working frequency within the band 100-150 kHz;
( 2 ) Receive A1A emission on all radio channels authorized for transmission by mobile stations operating in the maritime mobile service for telegraphy within the band 100-150 kHz.
( b ) Stations having a frequency assignment within the 405-525 kHz band must transmit and receive on 500 kHz and at least one working frequency in the band.
( c ) Stations having frequency assignments above 4000 kHz must be equipped to receive on each of their assigned frequencies and all ship station radiotelegraphy frequencies in the same sub-band as the assigned frequency of the coast station. See subpart H of this part for the list of frequencies.
#### § 105-72.401 Insurance coverage.

Recipients shall, at a minimum, provide the equivalent insurance coverage for real property and equipment acquired with Federal funds as provided to property owned by the recipient. Federally-owned property need not be insured unless required by the terms and conditions of the award.
No. 11-5212.

#### Rhoades *v.*Henry, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-P282Future Trends in PolicingIn this report, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a Washington, D.C.-based policing research organization, conducted a survey of law enforcement agencies and held a one-day conference of police executives to discuss how current issues will determine the future of policing. The issues include: new technologies and strategies such as predictive policing; the importance of building strong partnerships with the community, academia, and federal law enforcement agencies; the use of social media to disseminate information as well as gather intelligence; the growing threat of cybercrime; and changes in workforce demographics that may result in new organizational structures for police agencies. PERF concludes that policing is changing far more rapidly than it did a generation ago, and that police executives will continue to take on and manage these challenges, if for no other reason than the public will demand it.By Police Executive Research ForumCategories: Police Operations • TechnologyLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-p282Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Jun 2014Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 02:30 (UTC-5) in 0.19 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
No. 11-5570.

#### Jack *v.*West Virginia et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4596 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4596

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
     To designate the building located at 2200 North Highway 67 in 
  Florissant, Missouri, for the period of time during which it houses 
   operations of the United States Postal Service, as the ``John L. 
                       Lawler, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The building located at 2200 North Highway 67 in Florissant, 
Missouri, shall, for the period of time during which it houses 
operations of the United States Postal Service, be known and designated 
as the ``John L. Lawler, Jr. Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall, with respect to the period referred to in section 1, be deemed 
to be a reference to the John L. Lawler, Jr. Post Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     







103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4596

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To designate the building located at 2200 North Highway 67 in 
  Florissant, Missouri, for the period of time during which it houses 
   operations of the United States Postal Service, as the ``John L. 
                       Lawler, Jr. Post Office''.`
Exhibit 10.32


    November
      14, 2006

    


    


    B.
      M.
      Rankin, Jr.

    300
      Crescent Court, Suite 875

    Dallas,
      Texas 75201

    


    Dear
      Mr.
      Rankin:

    


    The
      purpose of this letter is to confirm the automatic renewal of your Consulting
      Agreement dated January 1, 1991, as amended (the “Agreement”).

    


    Your
      contract will automatically renew for an additional one-year period beginning
      January 1, 2007, and ending December 31, 2007. All other terms and conditions
      of
      the Agreement shall remain the same.

    


    Please
      confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding with respect
      to this matter by signing both originals of this letter and returning one to
      me.

    


    Very
      truly yours,

    


    /s/
      Richard C. Adkerson 

    


    Richard
      C. Adkerson

    Chairman
      of the Board

    President

    FM
      Services Company

    


    


    


    AGREED
      TO AND ACCEPTED

    


    


    BY:
      _/s/
      B.
      M. Rankin, Jr.    11/15/06 

    B.
      M.
      Rankin, Jr.   Date
Exhibit 21
  List of
    Subsidiaries
    Name

StateAmerican Office Park Properties, TPGP, Inc.

CaliforniaPSBP QRS, Inc.

CaliforniaHernmore, Inc.

MarylandAOPP Acquisition Corp. Two

CaliforniaTenant Advantage, Inc.

CaliforniaPS Business Parks, L.P.

CaliforniaPSBP Northpointe D, L.L.C.

VirginiaPSBP Monroe, L.L.C.

VirginiaMonroe Parkway, L.L.C.

Virginia2767 Prosperity Way, L.L.C

CaliforniaMetro Park I, L.L.C.

DelawareMetro Park II, L.L.C.

DelawareMetro Park III, L.L.C.

DelawareMetro Park IV, L.L.C.

DelawareMetro Park V, L.L.C.

DelawarePS Metro Park, L.L.C.

DelawarePSBP Westwood GP, L.L.C.

DelawarePSBP Industrial, L.L.C.

DelawareMiami International Commerce Center

FloridaREVX-098, L.L.C.

DelawarePS Rose Canyon, L.L.C.

DelawareGB, L.L.C.

MarylandPSBP Meadows L.L.C.

DelawarePSB Boca Commerce Park, L.L.C.

DelawarePSB Wellington Commerce Park I, L.L.C.

DelawarePSB Wellington Commerce Park II, L.L.C.

DelawarePSB Wellington Commerce Park III, L.L.C.

Delaware
EXHIBIT 32(a)

# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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-QSB of Hendrx Corp. (Registrant) for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (Report), I, Hendrik Tjandra, chief executive officer, hereby 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:

|(1) |  | This 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 this Report fairly represents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Registrant.
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Hendrik Tjandra

Hendrik TjandraChief Executive
OfficerNovember 11, 2005

This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for
the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This
certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made
before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written
statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained
by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 74
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 74 appear at 64 FR 4055, Jan. 27, 1999.

§ 74.501 Classes of aural broadcast auxiliary stations. ( a ) *Aural broadcast STL station.* A fixed station for the transmission of aural program material between the studio and the transmitter of a broadcasting station other than an international broadcasting station.
( b ) *Aural broadcast intercity relay (ICR) station.* A fixed station for the transmission of aural program material between radio broadcast stations, other than international broadcast stations, between FM radio broadcast stations and their co-owned FM booster stations, between noncommercial educational FM radio stations and their co-owned noncommercial educational FM translator stations assigned to reserved channels (Channels 201 to 220), between FM radio stations and FM translator stations operating within the coverage contour of their primary stations, or for such other purposes as authorized in § 74.531.
( c ) *Aural broadcast microwave booster station.* A fixed station in the broadcast auxiliary service that receives and amplifies signals of an aural broadcast STL or intercity relay station and retransmits them on the same frequency.
[28 FR 13716, Dec. 14, 1963, as amended at 49 FR 7129, Feb. 27, 1984; 53 FR 4169, Feb. 12, 1988; 55 FR 50692, Dec. 10, 1990; 57 FR 41111, Sept. 9, 1992]