alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,149,290
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,686,196
<PP&E>                                         411,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,130,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          657,050
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,478
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,462,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,130,065
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,482
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,238,355
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (2,756,572)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,965,445)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,965,445)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.01)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2** **Consent    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm —    Grant Thornton LLP**     The Board of Directors    OpenTV Corp.     We have issued our reports dated March 9, 2007,    accompanying the consolidated financial statements and    management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal    control over financial reporting included in this Annual Report    on    Form 10-K    of OpenTV Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2006. We    hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports    in the Registration Statements of OpenTV Corp. on    Form S-8    (File    No. 333-74026,No. 333-52180,No. 333-42892,No. 333-37196,No. 333-102944,No. 333-115373,    and    No. 333-130560)    and on    Form S-3    (File    No. 333-115374). /s/  GRANT    THORNTON LLP     San Francisco, California    March 9, 2007
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

STEVEN LEE VARNUM,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-2659-GEB-CHS-P

vs.

RICHARD KIRKLAND, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a timely notice of appeal of

this court’s January 21, 2009 order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus. Before

petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c);

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “if the applicant

has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

The certificate of appealability must “indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy” the

requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).

A certificate of appealability should be granted for any issue that petitioner can

demonstrate is “‘debatable among jurists of reason,’” could be resolved differently by a different

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 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

 Except for the requirement that appealable issues be specifically identified, the standard 1

for issuance of a certificate of appealability is the same as the standard that applied to issuance of

a certificate of probable cause. Jennings, at 1010.

2

court, or is “‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” Jennings v. Woodford,

290 F.3d 1006, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)).1

Petitioner has made a substantial showing in his petition that his confession was

unconstitutionally admitted into evidence at his trial.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall

issue in the present action.

Dated: February 17, 2009

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02659-GEB-CKD Document 29 Filed 02/17/09 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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Robert Elmer Barber,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-1844 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

McGregor W. Scott, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoJuly 21, 2005, respondent requested an extension of time to

file and serve a response to the petition. Good cause appearing,

respondent’s request is granted and time is extended until 30

days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: August 11, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 20 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 1
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37113

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

MARGARITA T. ZEPEDA

,

Defendant-Appellant

. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 2010 Unpublished Op inion No. 603

Filed: August 24, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, S tate of Idaho, Twin

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan , District Judge.

Appeal from j udgment of conviction and sentence for forgery

, dismissed

.

Greg S. Silvey, Kuna, for appel lant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney

General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Margarita T. Zepeda was charged with two counts of forgery , Idaho Code § 18

- 3601

.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Zepeda pleaded guilty to one count, and the State dismissed the

other count , agreed not to file a pers istent violator enhancement, and agreed to recommend a

unified sentence of thirteen years with five years determinate. As a term of the plea agreement,

Zepeda expressly waived her right to appeal any issues “involving the plea or the sentencing and

any ru lings made by the court,” except that she retained the right to appeal the sentence if the

court exceeded the State’s sentencing recommendation. The district court imposed the sentence

recommended by the State, a unified thirteen

- year term with five years determinate, to run

concurrently with Zepeda’s sentence in another case. Zepeda appeals, contending only that her

sentence is excessive

.2

A criminal defendant may waive her appellate rights as a term of a plea agreement, and

such a waiver is enforceable. State v. Murphy , 125 Idaho 456, 457, 872 P.2d 719 , 720 (1994).

Here, Zepeda has presented no argument as to why the waiver of her right to appeal should be

deemed invalid or unenforceable. Therefore, it appearing that Zepeda has waived the right to

appeal the only issue that she att empts to raise to this Court, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ECEM EUROPEAN CHEMICAL :

MARKETING B.V., : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 05-3078

 :

v. :

:

THE PUROLITE COMPANY, :

:

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29 day of January 2010, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion in th

Limine to Bar Evidence of Prior Negotiations Leading Up to the 2004 Contract (Doc. No. 61),

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to the Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 69), Plaintiff’s Reply on

Parol Evidence Issues (Doc. No. 73), Defendant’s Supplemental Brief in Support of the Motion

in Limine (Doc. No. 80), and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief in Opposition (Doc. No. 81), and for

the reasons stated in the Opinion dated January 29, 2010, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s

Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 61) is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky, J. 

 JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hugh Wilkins, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 357]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J., at trial; Miller, J., at sentencing), rendered June 4, 1993, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in denying his request to enter into evidence the 911 tape recording of a phone call from an unidentified cab driver who gave the police a description of the perpetrators. Because the complainant overheard the 911 call and testified on cross-examination that the cab driver’s description was accurate, the defendant contends that the 911 tape was admissible pursuant to *People v Huertas*(75 NY2d 487), for the nonhearsay purpose of assisting the jury in evaluating the complainant’s opportunity to observe at the time of the crime and the reliability of his memory.

We conclude that this case is not analogous to *People v Huertas (supra),*in which the People introduced the complainant’s prior consistent description of the perpetrator. Assuming, ar*393guendo, that the complainant here "adopted” the description provided by the cab driver, the defendant was attempting to introduce the contents of the 911 call as a prior inconsistent statement in order to impeach the complainant’s credibility. However, the defendant failed to lay the proper foundation for the introduction of a prior inconsistent statement, *inter alia,*by questioning the complainant as to the contents of the 911 tape so that the complainant could explain any inconsistency *(see,*Richardson, Evidence § 214 *et seq.*[Prince 10th ed]). Accordingly, the court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to play the 911 tape as part of his direct case.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the People delayed in turning over certain portions of the memo book of a police witness. The defendant suffered no "substantial prejudice” from the delay *(see, People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937, 940), especially since the defendant rejected the trial court’s offer to give an appropriate curative instruction.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in (i) Registration Statements on Form S-16, File Nos. 2-51894,
2-55664, 2-63470 and 2-75654; (ii) Registration Statements on Form S-8, File
Nos. 2-77752, 33-10747, 33-24934, 33-33018, 33-54403, 33-54443, 33-54555,
333-08059, 333-08087 and 333-60839; and (iii) Registration Statements on Form
S-3, File Nos. 2-84910, 33-26314, 33-23880, 33-42698, 33-44871, 33-45091,
33-46999, 33-54317, 33-69432, 333-04385, 333-40869, 333-44421, 333-55921 and
333-68257 of our report dated February 2, 1999 (except with respect to the
matter discussed in Note 6 to the December 31, 1999 consolidated financial
statements, as to which the date is March 16, 2000), on the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (formerly K N Energy,
Inc.) and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1998 included in this
Form 10-K.


                                            /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 27, 2000
<PAGE>
  


                                           EXHIBIT 23



                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Kollmorgen Corporation:  



  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of Kollmorgen Corporation on Form S-3 (No. 2-90655), on Form S-8
(No. 2-64648), on Form S-8 (No. 33-44229) and on Form S-8 (No. 33-48953), of
our report dated January 31, 1996, except as to the infomation presented in
Note 8 relating to the Series D Convertible Preferred Stock redemption for
which the date is February 19, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of Kollmorgen Corporation as of December 31, 1995, and
1994, and for the three years in the period ended December 31, 1995, which
report is included in the 1995 Annual Report on Form 10-K.  



                               COOPERS & LYBRAND, L.L.P.

                               /s/  Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1996
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,170
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                       920
<INVENTORY>                                     30,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,998
<PP&E>                                         128,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                  93,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,869
<BONDS>                                         29,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,955
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,361
<SALES>                                        234,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               253,945
<CGS>                                          165,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,988
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,763
<INCOME-TAX>                                       533
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,230
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,230
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
- 492 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. SAVAGE

Cite as 302 Neb. 492

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Courtney J. Savage, appella

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed March 15, 2019. No. S-17-1166.

supplemental opin

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Sus

I. Strong, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overrul

Darik J. Von Loh, of Hernandez Frantz, Von Loh, appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Austin N. Relph 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg, 

Per Curiam

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellant, Courtney J. Savage, concerning our opinion in State 

v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873, 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). We overrule 

the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows:

In the subsection “(a) Authentication,” after the fourth 

sentence of the fourth paragraph, we insert the following 

language:

As for Savage’s contention that the State did not properly 

authenticate messages sent to him by others, we again 

disagree. The State was required only to introduce testimony sufficient to establish that the evidence was what 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

03/29/2019 09:06 AM CDT
- 493 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. SAVAGE

Cite as 302 Neb. 492

the State claimed it to be. The State did not claim that 

messages sent by others were anything more than messages sent to Savage’s cell phone. See State v. Elseman, 

287 Neb. 134, 841 N.W.2d 225 (2014).

Savage, 301 Neb. at 885, 920 N.W.2d at 703.

In subsection “(b) Hearsay,” following the second to the last 

paragraph, we insert the following paragraph:

We also reject Savage’s argument that text messages 

sent to his cell phone by unidentified individuals contained 

inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is “a statement, other than 

one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or 

hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3) (Reissue 2016). 

Messages sent to Savage’s cell phone were not offered 

for the truth of the matters asserted. They were offered to 

prove that the statements were made.

Savage, 301 Neb. at 887, 920 N.W.2d at 704.

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modif

 Motion for rehearing overru
No. 41806.

#### Protests 823867-G, etc., of Leo Feder & Son et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that the paraffin coating and twine on the outside of the cheese in question should not have been included in the dutiable ■weight.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Exchange Act  , Company
 1.
    
    The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, to
which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 In Witness Whereof
 /s/ Philip E. Soran
    
    
    
    /s/ John R. JuddPhilip E. Soran
    
    
    
    John R. JuddChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Chief Financial Officer
  41
# The professional GIS drone Technical specifications

# Technical specifications

Weight (inc. supplied camera) Wingspan

Material Propulsion Battery Camera (supplied) Carry case dimensions 

### Hardware

Operation Approx. 0.5 kg (1.1 lbs) 80 cm (31.5 in) EPP foam, carbon structure & composite parts Electric pusher propeller, 100 W brushless DC motor 11.1 V, 1350 mAh WX (18.2 MP) 83 x 13.5 x 56.5 cm (33 x 5 x 22 in)

30 minutes 36 km/h (10 m/s or 22 mph) Up to 1 km (0.6 miles) 6 km 2 / 2.3 mi 2 (at 974 m / 3,195 ft altitude AGL) Up to 25 km/h (7 m/s or 15 mph) Down to 1.5 cm (0.39 in) per pixel Yes (inc. mid-air collision avoidance) Yes Approx. 5 m (16.4 ft) Maximum flight time Nominal cruise speed Radio link range Maximum coverage (single flight) Wind resistance Ground Sampling Distance (GSD) Multi-drone operation Automatic 3D flight planning Linear landing accuracy 

# Package contents

• swinglet CAM complete system with senseFly’s built-in autopilot & all electronics (ready to fly)

• Still camera (includes memory card, battery, USB cable and charger)

• 2.4 GHz USB radio modem for data link (includes USB cable)

• Lithium-Polymer battery packs (includes charger)

• Spare propeller

• Carrying case with foam protection

• Remote control & its accessories for safety pilots (if legally required)

• User manual

• Software access codes & license keys (eMotion 2, Postflight Terra LT)

• Software included: eMotion & Postflight Terra LT



### For swinglet CAM updates subscribe to our newsletter at 

### www.sensefly.com
**EXHIBIT 31.3****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**I, James A. Chiddix, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A(Amendment No. 1) of OpenTV Corp. for the period endedDecember 31, 2004; and     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to statea material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annualreport.     /s/ James A. Chiddix           James A. Chiddix *Chief Executive Officer*Date: October 18, 2005
No. 63070.

#### T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc. v. United States,

protest 58/14392 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 53027.

#### Ludlow Manufacturing & Sales Co. *v.*United States,

protest 138812-K (New York).

*285Opinion by

Rao, J.

When the protest was called for trial the examiner át Boston substantiated the claim of the plaintiff. The protest was therefore sustained.
Before the Third Division,

September 28, 1950

No. 54702.

#### George Benz Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 86104-K and 86105-K (Minneapolis).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60867.

#### Continental Shipping Co. *v.*United States,

protest 220623-K/5067 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of steel strips similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 58580, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

[Proposed] Order Granting Defendant’s First Request for an Extension of Time

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

MONICA N. ANDERSON

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

VAN KAMBERIAN, State Bar No. 176665

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 324-3892

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Attorneys for Defendants Carey, Brown, Johns,

Scavetta, Motschenbacher, Paradis, Edwards, and

Stewart

SA2005301029

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV S-04-1897 LKK GGH P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

FIRST REQUEST FOR AN

EXTENSION OF TIME

Good cause appearing, Defendants are granted a 30 day extension to file a responsive

pleading. Defendants’ responsive pleading shall be due on or before November 2, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: 10/5/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

har1897.eot.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 23 Filed 10/05/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 59576.

protests 186629-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Specialty House, Inc., and Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.