alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Eliza BRUMFIELD.

No. 59951.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 1977.

John J. Dolan, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Leonard E. Yo-kum, Dist. Atty., Joseph H. Simpson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed.

However, we note under the authority of La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2) that the sentence imposed is illegal. Defendant was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor for life without benefit of parole. At the time the crime was committed (April 8, 1974), it was punishable by a term of life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence for a period of twenty years. La.R.S. 14:30.1, as added by Acts 1973, No. 111, § 1. The sentence imposed herein renders defendant ineligible for parole for the rest of his natural life rather than for twenty years, as provided by statute. Accordingly, the sentence imposed is vacated and set aside and the matter is remanded to the district court for resentencing in accordance with law.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000

<S>                              <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<CASH>                              19,739
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                      242,063
<ALLOWANCES>                         5,003
<INVENTORY>                        134,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   440,219
<PP&E>                             572,087
<DEPRECIATION>                     123,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,327,800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              299,668
<BONDS>                            788,682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                               251
<OTHER-SE>                          26,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     1,327,800
<SALES>                          1,045,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 1,045,215
<CGS>                              750,961
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      750,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       329
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  55,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     74,427
<INCOME-TAX>                        32,643
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 41,784
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        41,784
<EPS-BASIC>                         1.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                         1.67


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


1.    Dave & Buster's of Illinois, Inc., a Illinois corporation
2.    Dave & Buster's of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia corporation
3.    Dave & Buster's of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
4.    DANB Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation
5.    Dave & Buster's of Maryland, Inc., a Maryland corporation
6.    Dave & Buster's of California, Inc., a California corporation
7.    Dave & Buster's of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation
8.    Dave & Buster's of New York, Inc., a New York corporation
January 15, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF K.M.M. AND M.W.M., CHILDREN

NO. 14-14-00239-CV 

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

that the court below signed on February 12, 2014. The record shows that the 

judgment is not final. We therefore order the appeal DISMISSED.

We order appellant Matthew W. Mahoney to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal.

We further order that the mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            1,448
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 10,002 
<PP&E>                                              182 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (39)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   67,945 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10,682 
<BONDS>                                               0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0 
<PREFERRED>                                           0 
<COMMON>                                             54
<OTHER-SE>                                       34,819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          0
<SALES>                                           3,412 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3,412 
<CGS>                                                 0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6,985 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (1,136)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    825 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (855)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (1,633)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (1,152)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (1,132)
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3,917)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.03)
                                             


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25562]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA96-164-001]


Minnesota Power & Light Company; Notice of Filing

September 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 15, 1997, Minnesota Power & Light 
Company tendered for filing an index of all customers served under its 
open access transmission tariff as required by the Commission in its 
Order on Compliance Tariff Rates and Generic Clarification of 
Implementation Procedures, 80 FERC para. 61,143 (1997).
    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, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before September 30, 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. 97-25562 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Dale D. GORDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1728.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

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

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger and Jose R. Rodriguez, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, defendant below, was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance and loitering. A motion to suppress evidence seized from appellant at the time of his arrest was filed and subsequently denied by the trial court. After non-jury trial, appellant was found and adjudicated guilty on both counts of the information. A sentence of six months imprisonment was imposed on the possession charge, with a sixty day sentence on the loitering charge to run concurrently. This appeal follows.

Appellant raises two points on appeal. Firstly, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence in that the evidence seized was the product of an illegal arrest. Secondly, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal in that the evidence presented by the state was insufficient to prove the crimes charged in the information.

After carefully reviewing the record, all points raised in the briefs and arguments of counsel, it is our opinion that (1) there was probable cause for the arrest of appellant for loitering; (2) a valid search of appellant incident to his arrest ensued, revealing the controlled substance; and (3) there was competent substantial evidence presented at trial to sustain appellant’s convictions for loitering and possession of a controlled substance. *State v. Ecker,*311 So.2d 104 (Fla.1975); *Benefield v. State,*160 So.2d 706 (Fla.1964); *Sharp v. State,*328 So.2d 503 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Accordingly, appellant’s convictions and sentences are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51461]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation Policy


Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2160), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation Between 
the Government of the United States of America and the Government of 
Canada Concerning the Civil Uses of Atomic Energy and the Agreement for 
Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of America and 
the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic 
Energy.
    The subsequent arrangement to be carried out under the above-
mentioned agreements involves approval of the following: RTD/KO(CA)-6 
for the transfer of fuel assemblies consisting of 100,000 grams of 
enriched uranium containing 19,900 grams of the isotope U-235 (less 
than 20 percent enrichment) from Canada to Republic of Korea for use as 
additional fueling for the HANARO research reactor.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: September 25, 1997.

    For the Department of Energy.
Cherie P. Fitzgerald,
Director, International Policy and Analysis Division, Office of Arms 
Control and Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 97-26004 Filed 9-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 1997 / Notices 50657

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 14 hours.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Total Reporting and

Recordkeeping Burden: 1,540.

Clearance Officer: Colleen M. Devine,

(202) 906–6025, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 G Street, N. W.,

Washington, D.C. 20552.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander Hunt, (202)

395–7860, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10226, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503.

Catherine C.M. Teti,

Director, Records Management and

Information Policy.

[FR Doc. 97–25576 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

September 22, 1997.

The Office of Thrift Supervision

(OTS) has submitted the following

public information collection

requirement(s) to OMB for review and

clearance under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–

13. Copies of the submission(s) may be

obtained by calling the OTS Clearance

Officer listed. Comments regarding this

information collection should be

addressed to the OMB reviewer listed

and to the OTS Clearance Officer, Office

of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, N.

W., Washington, D.C. 20552.

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before October 27, 1997

to be assured of consideration.

OMB Number: 1550–0035.

Form Number: SEC Forms S–4, S–8,

SB–1, SB–2, and OTS Forms PS, OC and

G–12.

Type of Review: Extension of an

already approved collection.

Title: Securities Offerings Disclosure.

Description: OTS collects information

for disclosure in securities offerings by

savings associations based on the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission

requirements for the offering of

information to potential securities

purchasers.

Respondents: Savings and Loan

Associations and Savings Banks.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

71.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Respondent: 440 hours average.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

31,194 hours.

Clearance Officer: Colleen M. Devine,

(202) 906–6025, Office of Thrift

Supervision, 1700 Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20552.

OMB Reviewer: Alexander Hunt, (202)

395–7860, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 10226, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, D.C.

20503.

Catherine C.M. Teti,

Director, Records Management and

Information Policy.

[FR Doc. 97–25634 Filed 9–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6720–01–P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION  OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Kevin J. Mills, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Socket Mobile, Inc. on  Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material  respects the financial condition and results of operations of Socket Mobile,  Inc. 

|   | By: /s/ Kevin        J. Mills        Name: Kevin J. Mills        Title: President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date: March 12, 2009 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

I, David W. Dunlap, certify, pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Socket Mobile, Inc. on Form 10-K for  the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained  in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects  the financial condition and results of operations of Socket Mobile, Inc.

|   | By:      /s/ David W. Dunlap      Name: David W. Dunlap      Title: Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial      Officer (Principal Financial Officer)      Date: March 12, 2009 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
January 13, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 127515 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan CHRISTOPHER D. BENTFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127515 COA: 248795 Oakland CC: 2002-039613-NO BRANDON’S LANDING BOAT BAR, DAVID WATTS, INC., an d DAVID WATTS, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On December 14, 2005 , the Court heard oral argument on the a pplication for leave to appeal the August 31, 2004 judgment of the Court of Ap peals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE Part III of the Court of Appeal s opinion and REINSTATE the Oakland Circuit Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion fo r reconsideration. For the reasons stated in the partially dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she deni ed plaintiff’s moti on for reconsideration.

C AVANAGH , J., would deny leave to appeal.

M ARKMAN , J., dissents and states as follows:

I would deny leave to ap peal. In denying plainti ff’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court held that plaintiff “merel y present[ed] the sa me issues ruled upon previously by this Court . . . .” This statement was an erro r because plaintiff argued for the first time in his motion for reconsideration that defen dant was liable under MCL 554.139. The dissent in the Court of Appeals, upon which th e majority relies, asserted that “‘[w]e find no abuse of discretion in denying a motion resting on a lega l theory and facts which could have b een pled or argued prior to the tr ial court’s original order.’” Bentfield v Brandon’s Landing Boat Bar, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 31, 2004 (Docket No. 248795) (Meter, J., conc urring in part and dissenting in part), quoting Charbeneau v Wayne Co Gen Hosp , 158 Mich App 730, 733 (1987). However, it also woul d not necessarily have been an abuse of discretion to have_______________________________________ __ 2

considered a motion for reconsideration resting upo n a new legal theory. See MCR 2.119(F)(3). The trial court simply failed to recognize that plaintiff was raising a new legal theory and, as a result, failed to exercise its discreti on to consider (or not consider) plaintiff’s argument. The trial court’s failure to exercise its discre tion was itself an abuse of discretion.

K ELLY , J., joins the statement of M ARKMAN , J.

t0110 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.
January 13, 2006
Clerk
#### Raefield TARVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1728.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

June 24, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of China Holdings, Inc.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 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 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 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; and  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.  June 23, 2008   /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Financial Officer
#### VERMILION CORPORATION v. Norman VAUGHN.

No. 61736.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Norman Vaughn, Freddie Brous-sard and Larry J. Broussard applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Vermilion. 356 So.2d 551.

Writ denied.

DIXON, CALOGERO, JJ., vote to grant the writ.