alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1275 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1275

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove, Alaska, as the ``Alice R. 
                    Brusich Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ALICE R. BRUSICH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 7172 North Tongass Highway, in Ward Cove, Alaska, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Alice R. Brusich Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Alice R. 
Brusich Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate July 1, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1275

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 7172 North Tongass Highway, Ward Cove, Alaska, as the ``Alice R. 
                    Brusich Post Office Building''.
```
No. 9472.

#### Murphy *v.*The Cleveland & Sandusky Brewing Co. et al.

(Decided May 22, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Herman Preusser,*for plaintiff in error. ,

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders $ Dempsey,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck; C- J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### John SCHNEIDER, Appellant, v. Norma Jean SCHNEIDER, Appellee.

No. 77-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 1, 1977.

J. Russell Hornsby, Orlando, for appellant.

James E. Foster, Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Simonet, Orlando, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

For our consideration is an Interlocutory Appeal of an Order requiring discovery for a hearing seeking post judgment relief.

Appellant is seeking termination or reduction of the amount he is required to pay Appellee as alimony. He alleges he has a reduced ability to pay and his ex-wife has a reduced need. On interrogatories the wife seeks to discover the amount of any savings accounts or “commercial accounts” owned by the ex-husband’s present wife. She also seeks to discover whether or not her ex-husband’s present wife has owned any real property “during the last two years.” The Appellant objected to the questions as being irrelevant and immaterial and “an invasion *613of the right of privacy of the husband’s present spouse.” The court overruled the objections and ordered the Appellant to answer. We disagree with the trial court and reverse. Cited to us are *Birge v. Simpson,*280 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) and *Condon v. Condon,*295 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) which are rather on point but have to do with child support. Unless there is some showing on the part of the wife that the husband terminated or reduced his employment in order to keep from paying alimony and that he was relying upon his present wife for his living expenses in completion of the scheme, we can see no possibility of relevance concerning the present spouse’s income. We are aware from the answer to one of the interrogatories that the husband’s present spouse had paid some $1250 to his attorney for his services in this matter but we cannot find that to be within the definition of income.

The Order overruling objections to interrogatories is REVERSED.

CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
#### Bobby Lee THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1928.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 2, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

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

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON, J., and CRAWFORD, GRADY L. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal of an order revoking probation, the defendant probationer urges that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony which established that the defendant had committed several offenses other than the violation charged in the affidavit of violation of probation. The record reveals that the other offenses which were proved by the testimony were related to the offense charged in the affidavit and were admissible into evidence under the rules stated in *Williams v. State,*110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959).

An additional point questioning the sufficiency of the proof of the violation charged in the affidavit does not present reversible error upon the holding in *Randolph v. State,*292 So.2d 374 (Fla.3d DCA 1974).

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1


 


 


THIRD AMENDMENT TO
THE AMENDED AND RESTATED RIGHTS AGREEMENT


THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED RIGHTS
AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of November 14, 2007, between
International Rectifier Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Mellon
Investor Services LLC (F/K/A ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C.), as Rights Agent (“Rights Agent”).


 


W  I  T  N  E  S
S  E  T  H


WHEREAS, The Company and the Rights Agent have
previously entered in a certain Amended and Restated Rights Agreement, dated as
of December 15, 1998; a certain First Amendment to the Amended and Restated
Rights Agreement, dated as of August 11, 2006; and a certain Second Amendment
to the Amended and Restated Rights Agreement, dated as of November 20, 2006 (as
amended, the “Rights Agreement”);


WHEREAS, the Rights Agreement shall expire pursuant to
its terms as of November 21, 2007, unless otherwise extended in accordance with
its provisions; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has
authorized the Company to extend the Rights Agreement until November 25, 2008,
pending further review.


NOW, THEREFORE, the
parties agree as follows:


1.    The
Expiration Date (as defined in the Rights Agreement) is hereby extended to
November 25, 2008.


2.   Except as
set forth herein, the Rights Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and
effect.


 

















 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused
this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


	
   

  	
  INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER

  CORPORATION:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  MELLON INVESTOR SERVICES LLC (f/k/a

  ChaseMellon Shareholder Services, L.L.C.):

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Vice President
**CERTIFICATION      OF PERIODIC REPORT**

| (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                November 14, 2006 | /s/                Paul Van Ostenbridge            |
|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                    | Paul                Van Ostenbridge                |
|                                    | Chief                Executive Officer             |
|                                    |                                               |
|                                    |                                               |
| Dated:                November 14, 2006 | /s/                Julie E. Holland                |
|                                    | Julie                E. Holland                    |
|                                    | Senior                Vice President and Treasurer |
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 18, 2009 

d0617 

Order 

 

June 18, 2009 

138724 & (23) 

ERIC KORPAL and MARY KORPAL, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v SC: 138724 

 COA: 290077 

Saginaw CC: 03-049832-NH 

SAMUEL J. SHAHEEN, M.D. and 

MIDWESTERN SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, 

P.C., 

Defendants, 

and 

STEPHEN A. MESSANA, D.O., SCOTT 

CHENEY, M.D., ADVANCED DIAGNOSTIC 

IMAGING, P.C., and COVENANT 

HEALTHCARE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. We 

further ORDER that trial court proceedings are stayed pending the completion of this 

appeal. The application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2009 order of the Court of 

Appeals remains pending.
#### LAYNE-LOUISIANA, DIVISION OF The SINGER CO. v. GREEN ACRES SEWERAGE & WATER CORP.

No. 60444.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Green Acres Sewerage & Water Corp. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 347 So.2d 1222.

Writ denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, OC Kim, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Franklin Wireless Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 condition, 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

         a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 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, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls.


Date: September 20, 2006                                      /s/ OC Kim
                                                              -----------------
                                                              OC Kim, President
# Dean Hutchins

### Program Manager

### 

### 

## Casting Program Overview

The DLA Casting Program ensures a viable and competitive metal casting industrial base providing affordable and high-quality parts for the warfighter. The program uses partnerships to improve the manufacturing and procurement of defense parts.

## Strategic Focus

        - Modeling, Simulation & Testing
        - Workforce Development
        - Materials & Processes

## DLA Lines of Effort

Industrial Base, Aging Weapon System Support and Logistics Operations Innovation

## Partnerships

DLA Land & Maritime, DLA  Aviation, JDMTP Metals Subpanel, Casting Industry Associations, Research Universities, Commercial & Defense Industrial Base 

 

## Forging Program Overview

The DLA Forging Program sustains and improves the forging manufacturing industrial base to ensure the DOD continues to have viable sources for the procurement of quality parts with forged content. The programs aims to improve the manufacturing process and materials to decrease material cost. We work directly with suppliers to maintain a viable and competitive forging supply chain.

## Strategic Focus

        - Forging die coatings and repair
        - Workforce Development
        - Intelligent Monitoring of Impression Dies

## DLA Lines of Effort

Industrial Base, Aging Weapon System Support and Logistics Operations Innovation

## Partnerships

DLA Land & Maritime, DLA  Aviation, JDMTP Metals Subpanel, Forging Industry Association, Research Universities, Commercial & Defense Industrial Base 

## Contact Us

**Dean.Hutchins@dla.mil 

**(804) 279-5033

Find more information on DLA Research and Development.
#### Leotis THOMAS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-63.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 8, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Elliott H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*220Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and James H. Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Hines v. State,*358 So.2d 183 (Fla.1978).
254 La. 510

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Holloway BOURQUE.

No. 49966.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 16, 1969.

In re: Holloway Bourque applying for writ of certiorari and mandamus.

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

SUMMERS, J.,

concurs in the denial of writs. Since the issue is squarely presented by this application, it is my view that the trial of the civil case for damages against this accused prior to the trial of the criminal charge, involving the same transaction, is patently unfair. Under this situation the accused is prejudiced in the civil suit if he fails to take the stand, and if he does his Fifth Amendment rights are impaired. The criminal prosecution should be disposed of prior to the trial of the civil suit. However, since the delay in the criminal trial is due, in part, to continuances granted on motion of the accused, the remedy of the accused is to move for a continuance of the civil case.
Exhibit32.2

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofVillageEDOCS (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months endedSeptember 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)The information contained in the Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date:  November 15,  2004                                              | /s/ Michael A. Richard              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|           ------------------------- | ----------------------------------- |
|                                                                                  | Chief Financial Officer             |

*ASIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHERDOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURETHAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTENSTATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO VILLAGEEDOCS AND WILLBE RETAINED BY VILLAGEEDOCS AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.*
#### Ralford Collins DISMUCKE, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. CC-482.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 16, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1977.

Geoffry C. Fleck and Max B. Kogen of Kogen & Kogan, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the records, briefs and arguments of the parties we conclude that no reversible error occurred. Moreover we deem that if error occurred by the admission into evidence of telephone company records as to certain calls made by state witness Beal, the error was only harmless. See *Pickrell v. State,*301 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974), cert. denied, Fla., 314 So.2d 585.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
#### William D. RAGSDALE et ux. v. J. E. HOOVER, d/b/a Hoover Masonry Contractor et al.

No. 61574.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: William B. Ragsdale and Betty Wisdom Ragsdale applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo. 353 So.2d 1132.

Writ denied.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1475 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopentanone. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 22, 2005 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopentanone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CYCLOPENTANONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.34.41 Cyclopentanone (CAS No. 

120–92–3) (provided for in 

subheading 2914.29.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 

’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•S 1475 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Burlon GRAHAM.

No. 61540.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: Burlón Graham applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Donovan Parker, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Court for the Parish of E. Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 10th day of March, 1978, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in dupli*260cate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this Court, 19_, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43522-43523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21475]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA97-679-000]


Montana Power Company; Notice of Filing

August 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 14, 1997, Montana Power Company (Montana) 
tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 
compliance to FERC Order No. 888-A, its FERC Electric Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 5 (Open Access Transmission Tariff).
    Montana requests that the Commission accept the tariff for filing, 
effective as of July 14, 1997; and allow the tariff to supersede 
Montana's FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 5.
    A copy of the filing was served upon Basin Electric Power 
Cooperative; Billings Generation, Inc.; Bonneville Power 
Administration; Central Montana Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.; 
Electric Clearinghouse, Inc.; Enron Power Marketing, Inc.; Idaho Power 
Company; Montana Consumer Counsel; Montana Department of Environmental 
Quality; Montana Public Service Commission; Northwest Regional 
Transmission Association; Western Area Power Administration; Western 
Montana Electric Generating & Transmission Cooperative, Inc.; and 
Western Regional Transmission Association; Aquila Power Corporation; 
Arizona Public Service; Cinergy Services, Inc.; Electric Clearinghouse, 
Inc.; Enron Power Marketing, Inc.; LG&E Power Marketing, Inc.; Morgan 
Stanley Capital Group; MP Energy, Inc.; NorAm Energy Services, Inc.; 
PECO Energy Company; Platte River Power Authority; Public Service 
Commission of Colorado; Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation; Sonat 
Power Marketing L.P.; and Southern Energy Trading and Marketing, Inc.; 
Vitol Gas & Electric Marketing LLC; Williams Energy Services Company 
under FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 5 (Open Access 
Transmission Tariff).
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,

[[Page 43523]]

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before August 21, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding.
    Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21475 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M