alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v CLAYTON GUY, Jr., Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 49, 37 CMR 313

No. 19,936

May 19, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major David J. Passamaneck,*and *Captain Raymond A. DiLuglio*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Lieutenant Colonel David Rariek,*and *Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam :

Appellant was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of willful disobedience of a lawful command by a superior officer, in violation of Article 90, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 890, and sentenced to dishonorable discharge, confinement at hard labor for one year, and accessory punishments.

Two issues are presented for our consideration. The first concerns the effect of placing the accused under oath in the out-of-court inquiry into the providence and voluntariness of the plea of guilty. We disapproved the procedure in United States v Simpson, 17 USCMA 44, 37 CMR 308, but determined that the record of trial disclosed no possibility of prejudice to the accused. Scrutiny of the record in this case requires the same conclusion.

The second question deals with a ruling by the law officer excluding, as “an invasion of the province of the court” in regard to the sentence, testimony by defense witnesses, who had served with the accused in combat, that they would be willing to serve again with him in such situations, notwithstanding his conviction. In United States v Robbins, 16 USCMA 474, 37 CMR 94, we held a ruling to this effect was error. Considering the nature of the offense, and the other evidence in *50mitigation, there is a fair risk the accused was prejudiced by the erroneous ruling.

The decision of the board of review as to the. sentence is set aside. A rehearing thereon may be ordered.
**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 m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
        10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Gabriel Kabazo,
        Chief
        Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
        knowledge:
 
 (1)
        the
        Report fully comply 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.
 
 By:
        /s/Gabriel Kabazo
 
 Gabriel
        Kabazo, Chief Financial Officer
 
 Dated:
        August 14, 2007
No. 52547.

protests 135527-K, etc. (Milwaukee and St. Louis).

#### M. E. Dey & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 4/24/2023 1

Opportunity to Cure an Insufficient Number 

of Ballot-Petition Signatures 

Douglas v. Niagara County Board of Elections 

(Richard J. Arcara, W.D.N.Y. 1:07-cv-609) 

On the day before a primary election, a complaint alleged that the 

plaintiff was wrongfully denied a place on the ballot. After the election, the judge concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; 

primary election. 

On the day before New York’s September 18, 2007, primary election, a postal 

worker filed a federal complaint in the Western District of New York’s Buffalo courthouse alleging that he was wrongfully denied a position on the ballot 

as Niagara Falls’ first African American candidate for mayor.1

 The plaintiff 

alleged that he was wrongfully denied an opportunity to cure an insufficient 

number of petition signatures.2 With his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction3

 and a 

motion to expedite the case.4

On September 19, Judge Richard J. Arcara granted expedition and set a 

hearing on injunctive relief for October 4.5 Judge Arcara presided over the 

hearing on October 4, 5, and 11.6

On October 16, Judge Arcara granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.7

Although Judge Arcara noted deficiencies in the notice procedures of Niagara County’s board of elections,8

 Judge Arcara denied the plaintiff relief because 

(1) he did not have a protected property or liberty interest in his candidacy 

for Mayor of Niagara Falls; and (2) even if he did have a protected interest, 

the availability of an expedited judicial procedure to review the BOE’s determination afforded him with an adequate pre-deprivation opportunity to 

be heard.9

1. Complaint, Douglas v. Niagara Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. 1:07-cv-609 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 

17, 2007), D.E. 3; see Thomas J. Prohaska, Douglas Sues to Get Back in Mayoral Race, Buffalo 

News, Sept. 22, 2007, at D3. 

2. Complaint, supra note 1; see also Thomas J. Prohaska, Elections Board Rules Anello 

Out of Primary Race, Buffalo News, Aug. 10, 2007, at D1 (reporting that the incumbent also 

failed to qualify for the ballot). 

3. Motion, Douglas, No. 1:07-cv-609 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2007), D.E. 1. 

4. Motion, id. (Sept. 17, 2007), D.E. 2. 

5. Order, id. (Sept. 19, 2007), D.E. 4; see Prohaska, supra note 1. 

6. Docket Sheet, Douglas, No. 1:07-cv-609 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2007); see Dan Herbeck, 

Hoping for Court to Rekindle Candidacy, Buffalo News, Oct. 5, 2007, at D1. 

7. Opinion, Douglas, No. 1:07-cv-609 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2007), D.E. 23, 2007 WL 

3036809. 

8. Id. at 9; see Dan Herbeck, Douglas Loses Bid for Ballot in Falls, Buffalo News, Oct. 17, 

2007, at B1. 

9. Opinion, supra note 7, at 11; see Herbeck, supra note 8.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,607
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,057
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,601
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,413
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,940
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,365)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,413
<SALES>                                          9,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,671
<CGS>                                            8,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               141,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (140,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (140,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (140,442)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
[No. 11954.

Department One.

June 23, 1914.]

#### L. C. Bane *et al., Appellants,*v. The City of Seattle, *Respondent.**1*

Municipal Corporations—Claims—Requisites — Residence oe Claimants. A claim for damages against the city of Seattle, a city of the first class, stating the residence of the claimants by street and number, without stating the name of the city, the venue of the jurat of the claim being laid in King county, sufficiently complies with Rem. & Bal. Code, § 7995, requiring the claim to state the actual residence of the claimants “by street and number,” in the absence of a showing that the failure to name the city, county and state was misleading.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered March 6, 1914, dismissing an action in tort, upon granting a nonsuit, after a trial before the court and a jury.

Reversed.

*Higgins*& *Hughes (Hyman Zettler,*of counsel), for appellants.

*James E. Bradford*and *Howard M. Findley,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 141 Pac. 339.

*142Per Curiam.

This appeal presents the same questions as those involved in *Jorguson v. Seattle, ante*p. 126, 141 Pac. 334, and *Decker v. Seattle, ante*p. 137, 141 Pac. 338. The notice, which was verified on February 12, 1913, and filed on February 15, 1913, stated the cause of action as alleged in the complaint, and contained the following statement of residence:

> “That the residence for one year last past of claimant is as follows: L. C. Bane, 2134 Laurelstrade Ave; W. V. Bane, Hotel Kennedy; Josephine Bane, 412 - 21st Ave.”

The case is controlled, in the main, by the decisions in the above cases. The only additional question presented in this case is the claim that the notice presented to the city council and filed with the city clerk was fatally defective in that it failed to state that the plaintiffs’ place of residence was in the city of Seattle. The venue of the *jurat*to the claim was laid in King county. The claim was filed with the city clerk. It complied with the letter of the statute in that it contained “a statement of the actual residence of such claimant by street and number.” In the absence of a showing that the failure to name the city, county, and state was misleading, we hold that the claim substantially complied with the statute.

The judgment is reversed.
**Exhibit 10.4**

**EnerNOC, Inc.**

2007 Executive Officer Bonus Targets

·                  The Company’s executive officers have thefollowing bonus targets (expressed as a percentage of salary unless otherwisestated):
| Name and Position                               | ** ** | **Bonus Targets (%)** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------|
| Timothy Healy,  Chief Executive Officer                   |       | 80                              | %          |
| David Brewster,  President and Chief Operating Officer    |       | 70                              | %          |
| Neal Isaacson,  Chief Financial Officer                   |       | 50                              | %          |
| Gregg Dixon,  Senior Vice President                       |       | $                               | 200,000    |   |
| David Samuels,  Senior Vice President and General Counsel |       | 50                              | %          |
| Terrence Sick, Vice  President                            |       | 30                              | %          |
|                                                           |            |                                 |            |  |

 

The bonuses will be paid within90 days of the determination of the amount, in cash, stock or some combinationthereof, as determined based on a bonus plan to be finalized by theCompensation Committee of the Board at a future meeting. Actual bonusesmay be higher or lower than the executive’s bonus target.

----
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-10230 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80111-DTKH-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK CAMPBELL, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 11, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-10230 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
Richard L. Rosenbaum, appointed appellate counsel for Patrick Campbell in

this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant

and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Campbell’s conviction and

sentence are AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 12-10230 Date Filed: 12/11/2012 Page: 2 of 2
No. 46721.

#### Protest 823959-G of J. L. Galef (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Laszlo*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 209, C. D. 47) the air pistols and parts thereof in question were held dutiable at *27%*percent under paragraph 372 as claimed.
62°15'E

62°E

61°45'E

61°30°E

61°15'E

ees a ae

—— a
f
\

a a a ee ns

ae ae:

EXPLANATION

33°45'N

33°30'N

10 KILOMETERS

5 MILES

Image quadrant or tile

Peak

A
tL]

—
Cc
&
=
Ew
Lae
ERa
a
O° 9
Ec
-= 8
oe
-'>
Sf20
yrnodk
|
|

Ty
Exhibit
      23.1









CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
Nos. 333-132829 and 333-133891, both on Form S-3, and Registration
Statements Nos. 333-132828, 333-142774, 333-147939, 333-152313, and 333-152314,
all on Form S-8, of our reports dated February 26, 2009, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Great
Plains Energy Incorporated and subsidiaries (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption
of new accounting standards), and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting (which report did not include an assessment on the internal
control over financial reporting at KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations),
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Plains Energy Incorporated
and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2008.






/s/DELOITTE
& TOUCHE LLP




Kansas
City, Missouri


February 27,
2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1404

FAISAL AMIN,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: February 4, 2021 Decided: February 11, 2021

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Faisal Amin, Petitioner Pro Se. Anthony Cardozo Payne, Assistant Director, Lance 

Lomond Jolley, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Faisal Amin, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reopen. We have reviewed 

the administrative record and the Board’s order and conclude that the Board did not abuse 

its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2020). We 

therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Amin,

(B.I.A. Mar. 11, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3985 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3985

To amend the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add certain land to the 
            Sarvis Creek Wilderness, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 20, 2024

Mr. Hickenlooper (for himself and Mr. Bennet) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 to add certain land to the 
            Sarvis Creek Wilderness, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Sarvis Creek Wilderness Completion 
Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Sarvis creek wilderness addition.--The term ``Sarvis 
        Creek Wilderness Addition'' means the land added to the Sarvis 
        Wilderness by the amendment made by section 3(a).
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Agriculture.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF SARVIS CREEK WILDERNESS ADDITION.

    (a) Designation.--Section 2(a)(11) of the Colorado Wilderness Act 
of 1993 (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; Public Law 103-77) is amended by striking 
``1993,'' and inserting ``1993, and certain land within the Routt 
National Forest that comprises approximately 6,817 acres, as generally 
depicted as `Sarvis Creek Wilderness Addition Proposal' on the map 
entitled `Sarvis Creek Wilderness Addition Proposal' and dated February 
26, 2024,''.
    (b) Applicable Law.--The reference in section 4(d)(4) of the 
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4)) to the effective date of that Act 
shall be considered to be a reference to the date of enactment of this 
Act for purposes of administering the Sarvis Creek Wilderness Addition.

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

    (a) Tribal Rights and Use.--
            (1) Treaty rights.--Nothing in this Act affects the treaty 
        rights of any Indian Tribe.
            (2) Traditional tribal uses.--The Secretary may, in 
        accordance with applicable law, permit Indian Tribes access to, 
        and use of, the Sarvis Creek Wilderness Addition for 
        traditional, religious, and cultural purposes.
    (b) Fire, Insects, and Diseases.--In accordance with section 
4(d)(1) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), the Secretary may 
carry out any activity in the Sarvis Creek Wilderness Addition that the 
Secretary determines to be necessary for the control of fire, insects, 
and diseases, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary 
determines to be appropriate.
                                 <all>
```
No. 46724.

#### Protest 922050-G of M. Pressner & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of whistling balloons, rubber 'balloons, and noisemakers, in part of bamboo, and that they are similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 40493. In accordance therewith the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 409 was sustained.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of Console Marketing Inc. on form 10-Q
for the period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Jackson, President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



August 25, 2004                        /s/ Michael Jackson
-------------------------------        -----------------------------------------
(Date)                                 Michael Jackson
                                       President and Director
                                       Principal Financial Officer
                                       Principal Accounting Officer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Page 10
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2


               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Internet Security Systems, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation,
certifies 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 Corporation.

/s/ RICHARD MACCHIA
----------------------------------
Richard Macchia
Senior Vice President, Finance and
Administration and Chief Financial
Officer

May 14, 2003
Before the Second Division,

December 30, 1942

No. 47850.

#### Protest 899000-G of W. R. Zanes & Co. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the hay-bale ties in question are similar to those in *Wilbur Ellis Co.*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 673) the claim for free entry was sustained.