alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000944697
<NAME>                             SMITH BARNEY PRINCIPAL PLUS FUTURES FUND L.P.
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                              15,167,522
<SECURITIES>                        24,173,984
<RECEIVABLES>                          876,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    40,218,283
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      40,218,283
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,964,579
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                          38,253,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        40,218,283
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     2,762,227
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       719,088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      2,043,139
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         0
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                         2,043,139
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               58.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        


</TABLE>
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



Exhibit 10.4  


 
 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT    
  


        We consent to the inclusion of our report dated July 1, 2000, on the consolidated balance sheets of Tracer Technologies, Inc. and subsidiary as of
March 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income and retained earnings, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for the three years then ended, which
report appears in the Registration Statement on Form 20-F of BakBone Software Incorporated. 



/s/
Gold, Leins & Adoff 




Rockville, Maryland

February 4, 2002




1









QuickLinks


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
#### Grady BUTCHER v. LOUISIANA AND ARKANSAS RAILWAY COMPANY.

No. 61620.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1978.

In re: Grady Butcher, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Bossier. 353 So.2d 1068.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

**LISTOF SUBSIDIARIES OF****THE INVENTURE GROUP, INC.**
| **Name of  Subsidiary**             | ** ** | **State of Incorporation/Formation** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|
| La Cometa Properties, Inc.          |       | Arizona                              |
| Tejas PB Distributing, Inc.         |       | Arizona                              |
| Poore Brothers — Bluffton, LLC |       | Delaware                             |
| Boulder Natural Foods, Inc.         |       | Arizona                              |
| BN Foods, Inc.                      |       | Colorado                             |

 

----
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 00-823 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NARCOTIC DRUGS 

 Agreement Between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and EL SALVADOR 

Signed at San Salvador March 31, 2000 

 

and 

Agreement Extending the Agreement 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

San Salvador July 2, 2008 and April 2, 2009 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

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

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

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

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

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

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

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

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

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

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

or authentication thereof.” 
 EL SALVADOR 

 

 Narcotic Drugs 

 Agreement signed at San Salvador March 31, 2000; 

 Entered into force August 23, 2000. 

 And agreement extending the agreement. 

 Effected by exchange of notes at San Salvador 

 July 2, 2008 and April 2, 2009; 

 Entered into force April 2, 2009. 






























NOTE: This is an unofficial translation provided by the Government of the Republic of El Salvador. When the official English translation becomes available, it will be added to this publication. NOTE: The date of this note is actually April 2, 2009. The year 2008 was printed in error.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28


                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made
this 31st day of December, 1998, by and between ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, with its principal office located at 9800 Metric Blvd.,
Austin, Texas 78758 (the "Company") and CRAIG SMITH, an individual resident at
5904 Ivy Hills Dr., Austin, Texas 78759 (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company entered into a Severance Agreement
dated September 19, 1995, as amended (the "Agreement") which provided, inter
alia, for certain payments to be made in the event that certain events occurred
with respect to the Employee's employment relationship with the Company;

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company desire that there be certain changes
made with respect to the Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee want to memorialize in this Amendment
their agreements regarding such changes to the Agreement.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other mutual promises
and covenants contained in this Amendment and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties, intending legally to be bound, agree as follows:

     1. The changes contemplated by the Amendment to Severance Agreement dated
March 18, 1997 shall not take effect as of March 25, 1999 and shall have no
further force and effect.

     2. Except as specifically changed by the Amendment, all other terms and
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized officer and the Employee has hereunto set its hand as of the
date and year first written above.

                                        ENCORE:

                                        ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC.


                                        By: /s/ NICK CINDRICH
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Nick Cindrich, CEO


                                        EMPLOYEE:

                                        /s/ CRAIG SMITH
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        CRAIG SMITH
#### Jose Maria QUINTANA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-84.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 6, 1977.

*588Maynard A. Gross, Miami and Robert A. Spiegel, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Linda Collins Hertz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty after non-jury trial of aiding or assisting in conducting a lottery, in violation of Section 849.09(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1975). This appeal is from the judgment and sentence upon that conviction. Three points are presented; the first urges that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion to exclude the contents of intercepted telephone conversations. The evidence was procured pursuant to a telephone intercept order entered in accordance with Section 934, Florida Statutes (1975). It is specifically urged that the “inventory” provided in the statute was not served within the ninety day period provided for by Section 934.09(7)(e), Florida Statutes (1975). This statute is, in part, as follows:

> “Within a reasonable time but not later than ninety days after the termination of the period of an order or extension thereof, the issuing or denying judge shall cause to be served on the persons named in the order or the application, and such other parties to intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice, an inventory . . .”

The record reveals that the inventory was served immediately after the determination by the investigating officers that the defendant’s voice appeared in the conversations. It was, therefore, proper under the portion of the statute above quoted, which provides for the service of the “inventory” upon such other parties to the intercepted communications as the judge may determine in his discretion to be in the interests of justice.

Appellant’s second and third points fail to present error on this record and need not be discussed further.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 25, 2011 on the consolidated financial statements of Inventure Foods, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 25, 2010 appearing in this Annual report on Form 10-K , into the Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 333-26117, 333-48692, 333-87028, 333-127144, 333-127145, 333-137778, 333-151618, 333-159833).

 

 
| */s/ MOSS ADAMS LLP* |   |   |
|----------------------|--------|--------|
|                 |   |   |
| Scottsdale, Arizona  |   |   |
| March 25, 2011  |   |   |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 4.8

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                             CAPITAL ONE CAPITAL II


     THIS Certificate of Trust of Capital One Capital II (the "Trust"), dated as
of January 23, 2002, is being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by
the undersigned, as trustees, to form a business trust under the Delaware
Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. (S)3801 et seq.) (the "Act").
                       -------         -- ---


     1.   Name. The name of the business trust formed by this Certificate of
          ----
Trust is Capital One Capital II.


     2.   Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the
          ----------------
Trust in the State of Delaware are The Bank of New York (Delaware), 700 White
Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711.


     3.   Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon
          --------------
filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.




                            [Signature pages follow]

<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Certificate of
Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.


                                   THE BANK OF NEW YORK,
                                   not in its individual capacity, but solely as
                                   Property Trustee


                                   By: /s/ Geovanni Barris
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Name:  Geovanni Barris
                                       Title: Vice President


                                   THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE),
                                   not in its individual capacity, but solely as
                                   Delaware Trustee


                                   By: /s/ William T Lewis
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Name:  William T Lewis
                                       Title: SVP
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 683 -CR

Ja m e s D oug las Jo ne s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 421S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2003 -19 7 , HO NORAB LE JACK ROB ISO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n April 2004, appellant J ames Doug las J ones was place d on defe rre d adjudication community

supervision afte r he ple aded guilty to the ag g ravated assault of a public serva nt. See T e x. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2009). Following a hea ring on September 29, 2008, the trial
c ourt g ra nte d th e State ’s mot ion

to a dju dic a te , a dju dg e d a pp e lla nt guil ty , and

se nte nc e d h im t o twenty -five year s in prison.

A p p e l l an t ’ s c o u rt - a

p p o i n t e d a t t o r

n e y h a s f i l e d a m o t i o nt o w i t h dr aw s u

p p o rt e d b y a brief c oncluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. The br ief mee ts the require ments of An der s v. Ca liforn ia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstratingwhy

there are no arguable g rou n d s t o b e advance d. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 48 8 U .S. 75 (1 98 8) ; H

i g h v . S tate , 57 3 S .W.2d

80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 51 6 S.W. 2d

68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); J ac k so n v . S tate , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);2

Ga ino us v . S

tate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant re ceive d a copy of counse l’s brief a nd has filed a

pro se br ief in re sponse. We h ave re vie we d th e re c or d, c ouns e l’ s b ri e f, and the pr o se b ri e f. We a g re e wi th counsel that the a

p p ea l i s fr i v o lous and without merit. We find nothing in the re cord that might arguably support the appe al. Se e Bl e ds oev . S tate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005) (holding that it is constitutional err or for appellate court to addre ss nonmeritorious arguments raised in pro se re sponse to An de rs brief) . Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Nove mber 20, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DERRICK RANKINE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 03-313 Erie

v. )

)

RAYMOND SOBINA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on October 1, 2003,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 113], filed on

September 29, 2006, recommended that the motion for summary judgment, or in the

alternative, motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 108] be granted. The parties were allowed ten

(10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by

certified mail and on Defendants. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the

petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the

following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment, or in the

alternative, motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 108] is GRANTED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 113] of Magistrate Judge Baxter,

filed on September 29, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:03-cv-00313-SJM-SPB Document 114 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT  32.01

                           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 Quarterly Report of AvStar Aviation Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  his  knowledge:

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.

Dated:  August  19,  2010                            /s/  Clayton I. Gamber, Jr.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Clayton I. Gamber, Jr.,
                                                     Chief  Executive  Officer
----

----

| 1.   | The      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |   |                                |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
| Dated:  March      3, 2009 |   | /s/      Benjamin D. Hirsh          |
|                                 |   | Benjamin      D. Hirsh              |
|                                 |   | Chief      Accounting Officer       |
|                                 |   | (Principal      Accounting Officer) |
|                                 |   |                                |

----

----
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




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 filing of the Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A for the Year Ended  December  31, 2005 (the  "Report") by Tarrant
Apparel Group ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.       to the  best of my  knowledge,  the  Report  fully  complies  with  the
         requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934; and

2.       to the best of my knowledge,  the  information  contained in the Report
         fairly presents, in all material respects,  the financial condition and
         results of operations of Registrant.



Date:   October 10, 2007                 By:       /s/    David Burke
                                                --------------------------------
                                                          David Burke,
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 21.1**

 

**LISTOF SUBSIDIARIES OF****THE INVENTURE GROUP, INC.**

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**     | ** ** | **State of Incorporation/Formation** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------------|------------|
| La Cometa  Properties, Inc.     |       | Arizona                                        |       |
| Tejas PB  Distributing, Inc.    |       | Arizona                                        |       |
| Poore Brothers –  Bluffton, LLC |       | Delaware                                       |       |
| Boulder Natural  Foods, Inc.    |       | Arizona                                        |       |
| BN  Foods, Inc.                 |       | Colorado                                       |       |
| Rader  Farms, Inc.              |       | Washington                                     |       |

 

----
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****� Arms control outreach catalog [electronic resource].**
PDF-2009|
PDF-2011| 
 
 
 
SuDoc Number:D 15.18:

Item Number: 0379-B-17 (online)

CGP systemNumber: 000793701
September 20, 2018
#### Broward DAVIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-45.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 20, 1971.

Broward Davis, in pro. per.

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

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme *93Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 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 filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.