alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Henry Lee THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2133.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1977.

Henry Lee Thomas, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. *Turner v. State,*272 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1973); Compare, *Rubiera v. Dade County,*305 So.2d 161 (Fla.1974). Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Booker GLADNEY.

No. 60215.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 14, 1977.

In re: Booker Gladney applying for writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. The showing made is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
----

|   | (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:      April 15, 2008                       |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                            |   |   |
| /s/      Clarence A. Davis                      |   |   |
| Clarence      A. Davis, Chief Executive Officer |   |

| Date:      April 15, 2008                        |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                             |   |   |
| /s/      Teodor Klowan, Jr.                      |   |   |
| Teodor      Klowan, Jr., Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Harold J. VINCENT v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, etc.

No. 60398.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Harold J. Vincent applying for writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition and habeas corpus.

Writs denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01

                       LIST OF WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
                         RATIONAL SOFTWARE CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                     JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
--------------------------------------   -----------------------
<S>                                      <C>
Rational Software Holdings Corp.         Delaware

Rational Software Technology Corp.       Delaware

Rational Software SPC Corp.              Delaware

Rational International                   California

Rational Software Canada Co.             Canada

ObjecTime, Ltd.                          Canada

Rational Software Corporation Ltd.       United Kingdom

Rational Software SARL                   France

Rational Software GmbH                   Germany

Rational Software Holdings B.V.          Netherlands

Rational Software Benelux B.V.           Netherlands

Rational Software International B.V.     Netherlands

Rational Software Belgium                Belgium

Rational Software Nordic A.B.            Sweden

Rational Software Finland Oy             Finland

Rational Software Norway AS              Norway

Rational Software Denmark A/S            Denmark

Rational Software Schweiz GmbH           Switzerland

Rational Software s.r.l.                 Italy

Rational Software GmbH                   Austria

Rational Software Israel Ltd.            Israel

Rational Software Pty Ltd.               Australia

Rational Software Pte Ltd.               Singapore

Rational Software Korea Ltd.             Korea

Rational Software Corp. Pvt. Ltd.        India
</TABLE>

                                      53
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<S>                                      <C>
Rational Software New Zealand Limited    New Zealand

Rational Software Greater China Ltd.     Hong Kong

Nihon Rational K.K.                      Japan

Rational Software Do Brasil Ltda.        Brazil

Rational Software S.A. de C.V.           Mexico
</TABLE>

                                      54
# C_2013141EN.01001402.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 February 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Other party: X

(Case C-87/13)

2013/C 141/24

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Other party: X

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law, in particular the rules on freedom of establishment and on free movement of capital, preclude a resident of Belgium who, at his request, is taxed in the Netherlands as a resident and who has incurred costs in respect of a castle, used by him as his own home, which is located in Belgium and is designated there as a legally protected monument and village conservation area, from deducting those costs in the Netherlands for income tax purposes on the grounds that the castle is not registered as a protected monument in the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law, in particular the rules on freedom of establishment and on free movement of capital, preclude a resident of Belgium who, at his request, is taxed in the Netherlands as a resident and who has incurred costs in respect of a castle, used by him as his own home, which is located in Belgium and is designated there as a legally protected monument and village conservation area, from deducting those costs in the Netherlands for income tax purposes on the grounds that the castle is not registered as a protected monument in the Netherlands?

| 2. | To what extent is it important in that regard whether the person concerned may deduct those costs for income tax purposes in his country of residence, Belgium, from his current or future investment income by opting for a system of graduated taxation of that income? |
| --- | --- |

2.

To what extent is it important in that regard whether the person concerned may deduct those costs for income tax purposes in his country of residence, Belgium, from his current or future investment income by opting for a system of graduated taxation of that income?

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Planar Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 28, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gerald K. Perkel, President, Chief
Executive Officer, and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                                                  
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/    GERALD K.
PERKEL                                          
|    |  | Gerald K. Perkel President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director

Date: January 25, 2013
No. 55648.

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 128740-K/1037, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 99-1161.

#### Zirkind *v.*New York et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, As Amended I, Jong S. Whang, certify that: 1.       I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Amtech Systems, Inc.; 2.       Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this annual report; 3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report; 4.       The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a)       designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; (b)       evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c)       disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting. 5.       The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)       all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)       any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. By /s/ Jong S. Whang
Jong S. Whang
President and Chief Executive Officer
Amtech Systems, Inc.
Date:       January 13, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 41803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20558]



[[Page 41801]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Notice of July 31, 1997--Continuation of Iraqi Emergency


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 41803]]

                Notice of July 31, 1997

                
Continuation of Iraqi Emergency

                On August 2, 1990, by Executive Order 12722, President 
                Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the 
                unusual and extraordinary threat to national security 
                and foreign policy of the United States constituted by 
                the actions and policies of the Government of Iraq. By 
                Executive Orders 12722 of August 2, 1990, and 12724 of 
                August 9, 1990, the President imposed trade sanctions 
                on Iraq and blocked Iraqi government assets. Because 
                the Government of Iraq has continued its activities 
                hostile to United States interests in the Middle East, 
                the national emergency declared on August 2, 1990, and 
                the measures adopted on August 2 and August 9, 1990, to 
                deal with that emergency must continue in effect beyond 
                August 2, 1997. Therefore, in accordance with section 
                202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 
                1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency with 
                respect to Iraq.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    July 31, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-20558
Filed 7-31-97; 11:45 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DLA Land and Maritime Timeline of the Past 60 Years

By Kristin MolinaroDLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
The Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime based at the Defense Supply Center Columbus has a long history of support to our nation’s forces. The installation was dedicated in 1918 to expedite shipments of supplies to troops serving with the Allied Expeditionary Force in France during World War I and on January 1, 1963, the installation was assigned to the Defense Supply Agency (now the Defense Logistics Agency) and combined with the Defense Construction Supply Center. Although the installation name has changed many times throughout the years, the mission remains the same — to support American’s Armed Forces and her allies. See the timeline for some of the Central Ohio logistics center's key moments in the early days of the agency.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA 60th AnniversaryDLA 60th Anniversary L&M
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 23, 2012

p0416 

# Order

April 23, 2012

144218

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 14 4218 COA: 299238 Genesee CC: 10-026226-FC GENEO ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 11, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the
case of People v Vaughn (Docket No. 142627) is pending on appeal be fore this Court and
that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER th at the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the
decision in that case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE 

OF THOMAS E. ARCHIE, 

DECEASED JANUARY 31, 2018

§

§ No. 101, 2022

§

§ Court Below—Court of

§ Chancery of the State of

§ Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. 2020-0691

Submitted: October 14, 2022

Decided: November 18, 2022

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

After consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we 

conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Court of 

Chancery’s order, entered February 23, 2022 (the “Final Judgment”). The Final 

Judgment denied the appellant’s exceptions to, and adopted, a Master in Chancery’s

Final Report, issued October 26, 2021, which granted the appellees’ motion to 

dismiss their own petition under Court of Chancery Rule 41(a)(2), in the absence of 

any properly pleaded counterclaims.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that judgment of the Court of 

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
EXHIBIT 3.(ii)


                           AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS OF
                              SONOMA VALLEY BANCORP

          - Adopted by the Board of Directors effective July 19, 2006 -

Article III of the Bylaws was amended to include the following section:

"SECTION 16 - MANDATORY RETIREMENT

     Subject to Section 3 of this  Article,  any director  shall hold office for
any number of terms until such director attains the age of sixty-five (65), upon
which time it shall be mandatory  for such  director to retire from service as a
director of the corporation.  Retirement benefits,  if any, shall be afforded to
any director who retires,  subject to terms and conditions of any plan, benefits
or compensation structure(s) in place at such time.

     Notwithstanding the foregoing,  the mandatory  retirement  condition may be
waived for any director  that  becomes  subject to the  conditions  thereof by a
majority  vote of all the other  directors  then  serving on the  Board.  Such a
majority vote shall be determined by secret ballot."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7616

HENRY LEVI PIGOTT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MICHAEL T. W. BELL, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-671-5-H) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Levi Pigott, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Henry Levi Pigott appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Pigott v. Bell , No. CA-00-671-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Horace W. GETCHELL, Sr., Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of his Deceased son, Horace W. Getchell, Jr. v. Anthony GUARINO et al.

No. 59521.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 1977.

In re: Horace W. Getchell, Sr., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, 343 So.2d 1109, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. The result is correct.

DIXON, J., dissents.

CALOGERO and DENNIS, JJ., would grant the writ;
No. 48896.

#### Protests 48256-K, etc., of Eurasia Import Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of hats of straw, etc., similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 47291. In accordance therewith the claim at only 25 percent was sustained.