alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lesher v. Roessner.

Attorney— *lien of v/pon judgment*— *Notiee.*

Where a judgment was wholly for costs, *held,*that the attorney for the judgment creditor had a lien upon the judgment to the whole amount *(McGregor*v. *Oomstoek,*28 N. T. 287), and the record of the judgment was notice to all parties to the action that the attorney had such a lien.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court.

The action was brought by Stephen R. Lesher and others against Egidius Roessner to recover a balance of account for goods sold and delivered.

*Francis C. Devlin,*for appellant.

*C. J. G. Hall,*for respondents.

*675Lawrence, J.

The only point not of fact passed upon is stated fully in the headnote.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on
Form S-3 and  related  Prospectuses  (Registration  Nos.  333-67516,  333-40812,
333-34942,  333-69047,  333-43795 and 333-67625)  and on Form S-8  (Registration
Nos.  333-61330,   333-38918,  333-61909,  333-52909  and  333-17749)  of  V-ONE
Corporation  of our report dated January 29, 2002,  with respect to the 2000 and
2001  financial  statements and schedule of V-ONE  Corporation  included in this
amended Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 2002.


                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, VA
January 13, 2004
#### § 204.3 Claims not payable.

A claim is not payable under the regulations in this part 204, if such tort claim is excluded from the scope of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as amended, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2680.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00587-CV

ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

Rafael ZUNIGA,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-13-112-A

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them.

SIGNED October 7, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
EX32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Amended Quarterly  Report of DATAMEG Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the Quarter ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mel Wyman, Chief Executive Officer and Sole Director (Principal Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of
DATAMEG Corp. (the "Registrant"), certify  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.

                                      Date: March 09, 2003

                                     /s/ Mel Wyman
                                   -------------------------
                                     Mel Wyman
                                    Chief Executive Officer and Sole Director
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements of AXENT
Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1998, and for
each of the years then ended, which financial statements are included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K, we have also audited the financial statement
schedule listed in Item 14 (a) herein.

  In our opinion, this financial statement schedule, when considered in relation
to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all
material respects, the information required to be included herein.


                                   PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Washington, D.C.
January 26, 1999
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-11138-BAF-RSW

KEVIN NANNINI,

Defendant.

/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE OF KEVIN NANNINI

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, Plaintiff has settled this matter with Kevin Nannini

(“Defendant”). Pursuant to the settlement agreement’s terms, Plaintiff hereby voluntarily

dismisses Defendant from this action with prejudice. Kevin Nannini was assigned the IP address

107.5.162.183. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Defendant Kevin Nannini has neither

answered Plaintiff’s Complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.

Consistent herewith Plaintiff consents to the Court having its case closed for

administrative purposes.

Dated: August 18, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul J. Nicoletti

pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

33717 Woodward Avenue, Suite #433

Birmingham, Michigan 48009

Phone: (248) 203-7800

Attorney for Plaintiff

2:15-cv-11138-BAF-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 08/18/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 61
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 18, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing document

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF and that service was perfected on all counsel of

record and interested parties through this system.

By: /s/ Paul J. Nicoletti_______

Paul J. Nicoletti

2:15-cv-11138-BAF-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 08/18/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 62
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000073 19-JUN-2015 08:53 AM
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of DOVER SADDLERY, INC. (the “Company”)for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers certifies, to the bestknowledge and belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Stephen L. Day /s/ Michael W. Bruns   Stephen L. Day Michael W. BrunsPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDirector *(Principal Financial Officer)**(Principal Executive Officer)*     Date: May 15, 2006 Date: May 15, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2230 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2230

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for 
    teachers and principals who work in certain low income schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2009

 Mr. Boozman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for 
    teachers and principals who work in certain low income schools.

    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 ``Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR EDUCATORS IN CERTAIN ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY 
              SCHOOLS.

    (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to nonrefundable 
personal credits) is amended by inserting after section 25D the 
following new section:

``SEC. 25E. EDUCATORS IN CERTAIN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

    ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible educator, 
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
chapter for a taxable year an amount equal to $2,000.
    ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
            ``(1) Eligible educator.--The term `eligible educator' 
        means, with respect to any taxable year, an individual who is a 
        teacher, instructor, counselor, principal, or aide in any of 
        grades kindergarten through 12 in an eligible elementary or 
        secondary school for at least 900 hours during a school year.
            ``(2) Eligible elementary or secondary school.--The term 
        `eligible elementary or secondary school' means any school that 
        is eligible for schoolwide assistance under section 1114(a)(1) 
        of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
        1965.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of 
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
inserting after the item relating to section 25D the following new 
item:

``Sec. 25E. Educators in certain elementary and secondary schools.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The accompanying 1997 Financial Data schedule is unaudited. It is suggested that
it be read in conjunction with the Company's audited 1997 financial statements
and notes thereto which are included in the Company's December 31, 1997 Form
10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          13,049
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,613
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,498)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,498)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.36)
        

</TABLE>
#### Henry C. Demming, *Respondent, v.*Edward M. Parrott, *Appel*lant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hykman' J. ;

Pratt, J., not sitting.
§ 197.326 Oxygen safety. ( a ) Equipment used with oxygen or oxygen mixtures greater than 40 percent by volume must be designed for such use.
( b ) Oxygen systems with pressures greater than 125 psig must have slow-opening shut-off valves except pressure boundary shut-off valves may be ball valves.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of The Vincam Group, Inc. for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 1996 included in Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                      17,335,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,300,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                   476,650
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,773,923
<PP&E>                                       5,243,557
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,327,146
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              57,676,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,298,352
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,013
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,071,889
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                57,676,442
<SALES>                                    395,619,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           395,619,538
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              370,036,342
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,780,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             135,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,420,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,834,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,585,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,585,976
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT 

TO SUBMIT INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR COURTAPPOINTED INVESTIGATOR 

 On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Defendant Curtis Scott of aiding and 

abetting a carjacking, aiding and abetting the use and/or carrying of a firearm during 

a crime of violence, and making a false statement to a federal agent. Sentencing is 

scheduled for September 11, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. On May 24, 2018, Scott requested 

that the Court appoint an investigator to assist him in gathering information for his 

sentencing. (See ECF #389.) In an Order dated May 31, 2018, the Court stated that 

it would consider appointing an investigator if Scott provided certain additional 

information concerning the identity of the investigator, the investigator’s tasks, and 

the budget for the investigator’s services. (See Order, ECF #395.) The Order 

required Scott to file a supplement with the requested information by June 15, 2018. 

(See id.) 

Case 2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG ECF No. 415 filed 07/19/18 PageID.4790 Page 1 of 3
2 

Scott thereafter filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file the required 

supplement. (See Mot. for Extension, ECF #401.) By order dated June 14, 2018, the 

Court granted the requested extension and directed Scott to submit the required 

supplement by not later than July 2, 2018. (ECF #403.) 

Scott did not submit the required supplement by the extended deadline. 

Instead, on July 16, 2018, he filed a motion in which he claimed that he got “no 

reply” to his request for an investigator. (ECF #413.) That assertion is false. The 

Court responded to his request for an investigator twice – in the two prior orders 

described above. 

The Court remains inclined to appoint an investigator to assist Scott with 

gathering information for use in connection with sentencing (and only sentencing). 

But the Court is not going to approve an open-ended and undefined request for an 

investigator, nor will the Court approve a request without a proposed budget. 

 The Court will grant Scott one final extension of time to submit the 

supplemental information in support of his request for investigator. Scott shall file 

the required supplement to his request for investigator on or before August 1, 2018. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 19, 2018 

Case 2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG ECF No. 415 filed 07/19/18 PageID.4791 Page 2 of 3
3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on July 19, 2018, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764

Case 2:14-cr-20780-MFL-DRG ECF No. 415 filed 07/19/18 PageID.4792 Page 3 of 3
**Explanatory Note**This Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A (this “**Amendment**”) to the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the“**Original Filing**”) of Homeland Security Capital Corporation (“**we**, “**us,**” “**our**” or the “**Company**”) forthe fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, originally filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “**SEC**”)on September 28, 2009, is being filed for the purpose of responding to certain comments made by theSEC by letter dated February 15, 2011 (the “**Comment Letter**”).In response to the Comment Letter, the Company has filed an amended Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm. Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, the Company is also including with this Amendment certain certifications dated as ofthe date hereof.Except as described above, the Original Filing has not been amended, updated or otherwisemodified. The Original Filing, as amended by this Amendment, continues to speak as of the date ofthe Original Filing and does not reflect events occurring after the filing of the Original Filingor update or otherwise modify any related or other disclosures, including forward-lookingstatements. Accordingly, this Amendment should be read in conjunction with our other filings madewith the SEC subsequent to the filing of the Original Filing.
 

 
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmBoard of Directors and Stockholders
#### JOHN SCHLENKER, Jr., ET AL., v. ABRAM L. SUSSMAN.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided January 3, 1929.

Before Justices Mintuen, Black and Campbell.

Por the applicant, *Samuel D. Williams.*

*Contra, Francis A. Cordon.*

Pee Cueiam.

The application for the rule is denied, with costs.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2433 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the deduction for 

State and local sales taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Ms. KOSMAS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the deduction for State and local sales taxes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State Sales Equity 

5 Relief Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2433 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ELECTION TO DEDUCT STATE AND 

2 LOCAL SALES TAXES. 

3 Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of the Internal 

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘January 

5 1, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2011’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
# C_2011340EN.01004103.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/41

---

Action brought on 26 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-83/11)

2011/C 340/86

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the president of the selection board for competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants (AST3) not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Principally:






  — | annul the decision adopted on 17 May 2011 refusing to permit the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants in grade AST3; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Principally:

—

annul the decision adopted on 17 May 2011 refusing to permit the applicant to take part in the assessment tests for competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants in grade AST3;

| — | consequently, declare that the applicant must be reinstated in the recruitment procedure put in place by that competition, if necessary, by holding fresh assessment tests. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, declare that the applicant must be reinstated in the recruitment procedure put in place by that competition, if necessary, by holding fresh assessment tests.

| — | In the alternative, if the principal application is not granted, quod non, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, if the principal application is not granted, quod non, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

quod non

ex aequo et bono

| — | In any event, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case; |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, pay the applicant an amount to be fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono at EUR 2 000 by way of compensation for non-material damage suffered, with interest for delayed payment at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case;

ex aequo et bono

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### Bolton Hall and others, *Respondents, v.*The United States Reflector Company, *Appellan*t.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Brady, J.