alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOE H. TROTTER, Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

No. 28,916

December 13, 1974

*Colonel William E. Cordingly*and *Lieutenant Colonel James LaBar*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Charles F Bennett*and *Captain Frederick P. Waite*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

Although the accused, testifying in his own behalf, limited his testimony to an alleged assault of which he was ultimately acquitted and a wrongful appropriation of which he was convicted, the military judge permitted trial counsel, over defense objection, to cross-examine him concerning the other offenses with which he was charged and found guilty. This was error, as the accused is entitled to limit his testimony to any offense with which he is charged. *United States v Sellars,*17 USCMA 116, 37 CMR 380 (1967); *United States v Marymont,*11 USCMA 745, 29 CMR 561 (1960); *United States v Johnson,*11 USCMA 113, 28 CMR 337 (1960); Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Rev.), paragraph 149 A. The extent of that erroneous cross-examination as well as the matters which it disclosed make the error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused. *United States v Sellars,*supra;*United States v Marymont, supra.*The effect of the error, however, does not extend to the offense of escape from confinement to which the accused providently pleaded guilty.

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be directed or the Court of Military Review may reassess the sentence on the offense of escape from confinement after dismissing the other charges.
?lo. 52-A21 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAYA 1983

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,
-VSSARY LYNN ALLEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: DistrictCourt of the Third JudicialDistrict, In and fortheCounty of Powell, The BonorableMark P. Sullivan, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record: For Appellant: C. F. Mackay, Anaconda, Nontana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ted Mizner, County Attorney, Deer Lodge, Montana

-. .- -pa-- Submitted on Briefs: January 6, 1983 Decided: March 31, 1983

Filed: 

### .$v"rM 3_t 

## 1983

- ClerkMr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

Defendant appeals a Powell County conviction of felony escape from the state prison. Defendant contends the State deprived him ofhis rights to a speedy trialbecause 184days elapsed between the time of his arrest, and the time of his trial. We affirm. On January 9, 1982, defendant escaped from the Montana State Prison where he was serving a 40 year sentence for mitigated deliberate homicide. Officials recaptured defendant on March 15, 1982,and immediatelyreturned him to the prison. He made his initial appearance in the trial court on April 1, 1982, and after the court appointed a public defender for him, he entered a plea of "not guilty." Trial was set forMay 24, 1982. On April 30, 1982,however, this trial datewas vacated after defendantmoved to substitute the trial judge and also filed a motion for a change of venue. The motion for a change of venue was not heard until July 29. The record provides no explanation for the three month delay in hearing themotion. On July 29, the court denied themotion and set
a trial date for September 17. Four days before trial, on September 13, defendant moved that the case be dismissed becausehe was deprived of a speedy trial; twodays later,on September 15,the courtdenied the motion. On the trial date defendant waived a jury trial and submitted his case to the trial court on stipulated facts. Defendant was found guilty and he was sentenced to fouryears hard labor, to run consecutively to his present prison term.Although the delay in this case was significant (184 days from arrest to trial and conviction), the defendant has shown no prejudice towarrant adismissalbecause of a speedy trial violation. Since defendant's recapture he has been kept inmaximum security,but defendant has not shown thathe would have been turned into the general population at an earlier date if he had a speedier trial. Surely onewho has e~caped can properly be considered a security risk. Defendant has not shown that an earlier trial and conviction
on his escape charge would have resulted in an earlier relea.se from maximum security. Defendant has shown no prejudice and therefore is not entitled to dismissal on the grounds he was denied a right to a speedy trial. State v. Burtchett (1974), 165 Mont. 280, 530 P.2d 471,cert.den. 420 U.S. 974. The judgment of the DistrictCourt is affirmed.

We Concur:
1 John T. Boyd, Chi ef Justic e (Ret.), Sev enth Court of Appeals, sitti ng by assignment. Tex . Gov ’t

Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2002) . NO. 07-02-0360 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E SEPTE MBE R 12, 2002

______________________________

STEVEN A. WARD, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNT Y COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF L UBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2000-47126 5; HON. DRUE FARMER, P RESIDING

_______________________________

DISMIS SAL

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, J.J. and BOYD, S.J. 1 Ap pellant, Steven A. W ard, appealed from an order revoking his probation an d sentencing him to 1 80 d aysin t he L ubb ock Cou nty Jail

. W e dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. The order revoki ng appell ant’s probati on indi cates that sentence was imposed on2

May 13, 2002. Appell ant then fil ed a motion for new trial on May 15, 2002. To be ti mely, a notice of appeal m ust be filed within 30 days after the sente nce is imposed or suspended in open co urtor within 90 days afte r that date if a m otion for new trial is filed. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a). Thus, appellant’s notice of appeal w as due to be filed on August 12, 2002 but was not filed unti l August 26, 2002. The deadline for filing the notice of appeal m ay be extended if t he n otic e of app eal is

filed in the trial court and a m otion seeking an exte nsion of tim e is filed in this co urtw ithin 15 d aysaft er t he d ead line f or filing t he n otic e of

app eal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3. However, no such m otion has been filed with this court. A ti me l y filed notice of

appeal is essential to invoke our appellate jurisdiction. Oliv o v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.C rim.App. 1996). If the notice is not tim ely, then the court of app eals can take no ac tio n other than to dism iss the proceeding. Id. at 523. Because appell ant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we have no j urisdiction to co nsider the app eal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Per Curiam Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4286]



[[Page 10642]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1503]


Approval of Request for Manufacturing Authority (Wheel Assembly), 
Foreign-Trade Subzone 22N, Michelin North America, Inc., Monee, 
Illinois

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Illinois International Port District, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 22, has applied for manufacturing authority under 
zone procedures within Subzone 22N, at the Michelin North America, 
Inc., tire-distribution facility located in Monee, Illinois, to conduct 
wheel assembly (FTZ Docket 4-2006; filed 2/2/2006);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (71 FR 7008, 2/10/06); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby approves the request for 
manufacturing authority related to wheel assembly, as described in the 
application and in the Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of February 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
 [FR Doc. E7-4286 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE ) CIV. S-04-2299 GEB GGH

COMPANY, )

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER

v. )

)

RENEE M. ENRIQUEZ and MARY )

ZILE, guardian ad litem )

for NICHOL ENRIQUEZ and )

JUSTIN ENRIQUEZ, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On April 12, 2005, the Court issued an Order (“April 12

Order”) requiring Metlife to deposit $108,300.00, along with any

applicable interest, with the financial department of the Clerk of

this Court, and requiring Defendants to file proof establishing the

fairness of the parties’ proposed settlement. In light of the

Application for Approval of General Release and Renunciation Agreement

filed on April 11, 2005, and the document entitled “Fairness of

Settlement to Interests of Minors Under Local Rule 17-202" filed 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02299-GEB-GGH Document 23 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

April 21, 2005, the General Release and Renunciation Agreement

submitted on March 21, 2005, is approved, and the April 12 Order is

vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02299-GEB-GGH Document 23 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SCOTT JOHNSON, 

NO. CIV. S-04-2571 WBS/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

MARK D. EARL, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On July 12, 2005, the court ordered defendants'

attorney, Joseph Clayton Fraulob of Farrell, Fraulob & Brown, to

pay plaintiff the sum of $1200 as sanctions under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 16(f) for failure to appear at the status

conference on July 5, 2005, for failure to appear at the order

to show cause hearing on July 11, 2005, and for failure to file

a status report as ordered by the court. The court is informed

that Mr. Fraulob has failed to pay plaintiff that or any other

sum to date.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that unless the sanctions

previously ordered have been paid before November 7, 2005,

defendants' attorney, Joseph Clayton Fraulob, shall appear

Case 2:04-cv-02571-WBS-PAN Document 24 Filed 09/23/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

personally in Courtroom 5 of this court at 9:00 a.m. on that

date to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt.

DATED: September 23, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-02571-WBS-PAN Document 24 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 2
##### 



CONSENT OF APPOINTED ACTUARY

I consent to the inclusion of the following report in the Form 40-F/A of Sun
Life Financial Services of Canada Inc. (the Company) for the year ended
December 31, 2002

My report dated February 12, 2003 on the valuation of the policy liabilities of
the Company for its Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2002 and 2001
and their change in its Consolidated Statement of Operations for the years then
ended.

Dated May 16, 2003

/S/ Robert W. Wilson

Robert W. Wilson
Vice-President and Appointed Actuary
Fellow, Canadian Institute of Actuaries
Toronto, Canada
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3684

___________ Comcast, of Illinois X, LLC, An * Illinois Limited Liability Company, * * Appellee, * * v. * * TKA Electronics, Inc., * * Defendant, * * Thomas Abboud, individually, * * Appellant, * * Cathy Vigneri, individually; Kim * Abboud, individually; Raymond * Vigneri, individually; Terry Abboud, * individually, * * Defendants. *

___________ Appeals from the United States No. 05-3739 District Court for the ___________ District of Nebraska Comcast, of Illinois X, LLC, An * Illinois Limited Liability Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, * * v. *1 The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. -2- * TKA Electronics, Inc.; Thomas * Abboud, individually, * * Defendant, * * Cathy Vigneri, individually, * * Appellant, * * Kim Abboud, individually, * * Defendant, * * Raymond Vigneri, individually, * * Appellant, * * Terry Abboud, individually, * * Defendant. *

___________ Submitted: December 29, 2006 Filed: January 8, 2007

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In these consolidated cases, Thom as Abboud and Raymond and Cathy Vigneri appeal the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in an action brought-3- against them under 47 U.S.C. § 553(c). Because they have provided no basis for reversal, seeIowa Network Servs., Inc. v. Qwest Corp. , 466 F.3d 1091, 1094 (8th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard of review), we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN RANDOLPH EPPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2548 DFL DAD P

vs.

K. MENDOZA-POWERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 3, 2005, plaintiff submitted two letters, one dated July 21, 2005, and

the other dated July 22, 2005. Both letters are addressed “To Whom It May Concern” and

request investigation of prison conditions. The letters are not captioned for filing in this case and

do not refer to this case. This civil rights action was closed on June 24, 2005, and plaintiff’s

appeal is pending. Plaintiff’s letters do not appear to be relevant to this action and will be

disregarded. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 21, 2005.

DAD:13

epps2548.58

Case 2:04-cv-02548-DFL-DAD Document 21 Filed 10/21/05 Page 1 of 1
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1211 

________________________________________________________________________ 

HEALTH 

Drugs and Medical Devices 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CHINA 

Signed at Beijing December 11, 2007 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CHINA 

Health: Drugs and Medical Devices 

 Agreement signed at Beijing December 11, 2007; 

 Entered into force December 11, 2007. 

















2
**At tachment**  **I**
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc.: Exhibit 10.44 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.44 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT 

Amendment No. 1 dated November 3, 2016 (this “Amendment”) to
Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of October 5, 2016 (the “Agreement”),
by and between Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the
“Company”) and Draper Gain Investments Ltd., a company organized under
the laws of England and Wales (“Purchaser”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and Purchaser desire to amend the
Agreement to change the date of closing. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and
agreements set forth herein, the Company and Purchaser hereby agree as follows:


1.         
Change of Date of Closing. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended
to provide that the date of Closing (as defined in the Agreement) shall be
December 12, 2016. 

2.          No
Further Changes. Except as amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain unchanged 

3.         
Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of New York. 

4.         
Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be
an original and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same
agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment on the date first written above. 

NET 1 UEPS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

By: /s/ Serge C.P. Belamant 
Serge C.P. Belamant

Chief Executive Officer 

DRAPER GAIN INVESTMENTS LTD. 
By:/s/ Peter Gain

Peter Gain 
Chairman
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas A. Rippel, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 286]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: From our review of the record, we conclude that there is no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing *sua sponte*to order a competency examination pursuant to CPL 730.30 (1) to determine defendant’s fitness to proceed. The record establishes that, although defendant stated at the plea proceedings that he was taking prescribed medication, defendant did not act in *1026a bizarre, erratic or inappropriate manner. Moreover, upon inquiry by the court, defendant stated that he understood the nature and consequences of his plea and was aware of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.

Furthermore, defense counsel never indicated that defendant was unable to communicate with him or otherwise aid in his defense. Thus, there is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant may be an "incapacitated person” as defined by CPL 730.10 (1). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.
ex4-10.htm


Exhibit 4.10

  

WARRANT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

 

This Warrant Modification Agreement is entered into as of September 30, 2016, between Hercules Capital, Inc., formerly known as Hercules Technology Growth Capital, Inc. (the “Warrantholder”) and AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”). 

 

Recitals

 

A.     On December 16, 2013, the Company issued to Warrantholder a warrant (as amended by that certain Warrant Modification Agreement dated as of September 18, 2015, the “Warrant”) to purchase shares of its Common Stock on such terms as set forth therein. Any terms not specifically defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Warrant.

 

B.     In connection with an amendment to the Loan Agreement of even date herewith, the Company and the Warrantholder now desire to adjust the Exercise Price of the Warrant.

 

Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Warrantholder agree as follows:

  

1.     The term “Exercise Price” in the Warrant is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:

 

“Exercise Price” means $3.07.

 

2.     Except as specifically set forth in this Warrant Modification Agreement, the Warrant remains unmodified and in full force and effect. 

  

 

***

 

 


 

 




 


  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by its officers thereunto duly authorized as of the date set forth above.

  

 

	
COMPANY:
	
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ HOWARD B. ROSEN
	
 

	
 
	
Name:
	
HOWARD B. ROSEN
	
 

	
 
	
Title:
	
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
	
 



     

 

	
WARRANTHOLDER: 
	
HERCULES CAPITAL, INC.
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By: 
	
/s/ JENNIFER CHOE
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
Name: Jennifer Choe
	
 

	
 
	
Title:
	
Assistant General Counsel
	
 



  

 

 

[signature page]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN TIMOTHY GREGORY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2523 DFL PAN P

vs.

 T. AYERS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On March 3, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither

party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02523-RRB-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 3, 2006] are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ August 29, 2005 motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff’s

retaliation claims against defendants Reuter, Glensor, and Coombs, and granted in all other

respects;

3. Plaintiff’s claims arising out of his June 30, 2004 disciplinary conviction on

charges of making false allegations against a peace officer are dismissed without prejudice; and

4. Within twenty days from the date of this order defendants Reuter, Glensor and

Coombs shall answer the second and third claims raised in plaintiff’s complaint

DATED: March 30, 2006. 

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02523-RRB-EFB Document 25 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2