alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAC K NOR

M AN R U KES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , v. M AR TIN FRINK; ATTOR NEY GENER AL OF THE STATE OF M ONTANA, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt. No. 14-35492

D.C . No. 9:13-c v-116-M -JC L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Je re m i ah C . Ly

nc h, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

6, 2015 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . M onta na a ppe a ls thedistric t c ourt’ s M a y 23 a nd Se pte m

be r 29, 2014 orders granting R

uke s ’ s pe tition for ha

be a s re lie f. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253. W e re ve rse and re m and. 

# FIL ED AUG 12 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.M onta na a gre e s tha

t the c om m e nt m a de by

the ba iliff in thepre se n c e of the jury a s the y we re a bout to c om

m e nc e de libe rations c o nstitute d e rror and tha

t the sta te c o urt’ s de c ision c onc e rning theissuewa s unre a s ona b le
. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). The re fore , we m ust sole ly de te rm ine whe the r the distric t c ourt e rre d by c onc luding tha

t the e rror wa s not ha

rm l e ss. On ha

be a s re vie w, whe n c onside ring whe the r an im

prope r c o m

m e nt m a de to thejury

wa s ha rm l e ss, thec ourt a

pplie s the sta nda rd from Bre c ht v . Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619 (1993). R uke s a rgue s tha t the m e re pre se nc e of a

pla in-c lothe d gua

rd sitting behind R uke s in the c ourtroom

wa s pre judic ia l a nd tha t the surprise tha

t the jurors m

ust have e xpe rie nc e d whe n

the y disc ove re d (right be fore e nte ring thejury room to de libe rat e ) that

R uke s wa s in fa c t be ing gua rde d, pre judic e d the jury . Howe ve r, to support a finding tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm ful, a c tua l pre

judic e m ust beshown. Dav is v . Ay ala , 135 S. C t. 2187, 2197-98 (2015). W e note tha t the Supre m e C ourt ha nde d down Dav is nine m onths a fte r the distric t c ourt’ s fina l orde r in this c a se . R uke s offe rs no e v ide nc e tha t he wa s a c t

ua lly pre judic e d by

the ba iliff’ s im prope r c om

m e nt. As e v ide nc e d by

its a c quitta l of R

uke s on two of the

four c ha rge s, the jury

e nga ge d in m e aningful de l ibe rat ions. Thejury wa s pre se nte d with substa

ntia l e v ide nc e tha

t R uke s ha d c om

m itte d the c h arge d offe nse s a nd m a de a re a sona ble de c ision ba s e d on tha

t e vide nc e . The re fore , a s the re is a la c k
2e vide nc e of a c tua l pre judic e , we m

ust c onc lude that the distric t c ourt e rre d by granting R

uke s ’ s pe tition for ha

be a s re lie f. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

3
Exhibit ll

                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
<TABLE>


                                                                                Two Quarters Ended
                                                                      ----------------------------------------
                                                                      July 31, 1999          July 31, 1998
                                                                      -------------          -------------
<S>                                                                   <C>                    <C>
Basic:

Net income                                                            $   1,971,000          $   2,121,000

Weighted average shares outstanding                                       4,425,000              4,716,000
                                                                      -------------          -------------

Basic income per common share                                         $         .45          $         .45
                                                                      =============           ============


Diluted:

Net income
                                                                      $   1,971,000          $   2,121,000
Less - net income allocated to subsidiary dilutive options
    outstanding                                                             (75,000)                (74,000)
                                                                      --------------         ---------------

Net income used in calculation of diluted income per
    common share                                                      $   1,896,000          $   2,047,000
                                                                      =============           ============


Weighted average shares outstanding                                       4,425,000              4,716,000

Plus- common  equivalent  shares  (determined  using the "treasury
    stock" method representing shares issuable upon exercise of
    stock options                                                           196,000                205,000
                                                                      -------------          -------------

Weighted average number of shares used in calculation of
    diluted income per common share                                       4,621,000              4,921,000
                                                                      =============          =============


Primary income per common share                                       $         .41          $         .42
                                                                      =============           ============

</TABLE>
254 La. 749

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leigh C. KELLER.

No. 49958.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 29, 1969.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

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 Elmo E. Lear, Judge of the Nineteenth Judicial" District Court, for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 19th day of December, 1969, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the realtor 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 his attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Computer Horizons Corp. (the "Company") for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2003 (the "Periodic Report"), I, William J. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: |  | January 21, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ William J. MurphyWilliam J. Murphy
Chief Executive Officer
|----- |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000022198
<NAME> COLUMBUS SOUTHERN POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,904,930
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     36,263
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         394,623
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        38,263
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 350,052
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,724,131
<COMMON>                                        41,026
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      572,302
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            160,171
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 773,499
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           959,416
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              25,900
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  26,625
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   40,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     34,642
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 6,329
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 832,720
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,724,131
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      868,766
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            37,945
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     728,441
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     766,386
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        102,380
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,228
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 103,608
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        39,221
<NET-INCOME>                                    64,387
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      1,065
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   63,322
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        41,322
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       24,932
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          77,243
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**
**Exhibit 31.4**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Matthew K. Szot, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-Kof S&W Seed Company; and 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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. 

Date: October 28, 2019 

 

/s/ Matthew K. Szot

*Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration*

*and Chief Financial Officer*

*(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)*
**
#### Ervin W. HILDERBRAN, Appellant, v. Shirley Faye HILDERBRAN, Appellee.

No. GG-390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 28, 1978.

*789Donald D. Carter, Jr., of Carter & Dun-ham, Gainesville, for appellant.

Shon A. Saxon, Gainesville, for appellee.

BOOTH, Judge.

This cause is before us on appeal from the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, entered in the Circuit Court, Alachua County. The judgment dissolves the marriage “a vinculo matrimonii,” and then provides:

> “Neither Ervin H. Hilderbran nor Shirley Faye Hilderbran shall remarry for a period of four (4) years subsequent to the date of this judgment.”

At the outset, we note that the judgment is inconsistent in itself. The dissolution, granted “a vinculo matrimonii” from the bonds of matrimony, or absolutely, is subsequently limited by prohibiting remarriage. A limited divorce, “a mensa et thoro,” from bed and board, is still recognized in some states, but not in Florida. Florida Statute § 61.031 provides:

> “No divorce is from bed and board, but is from bonds of matrimony.”

The court is without authority under Florida law to limit the right of the parties to remarry, *Mirras v. Mirras,*202 So.2d 887 (Fla.2d DCA 1966); 10A Florida Jurisprudence, Dissolution of Marriage, §§ 2 and 239, and cases cited therein, and that portion of the final judgment below is a nullity-

The husband also appeals that portion of the final judgment which requires he pay $51.40 per week in child support for the eight minor children born of the marriage. The parties previously signed a settlement agreement that he pay $40.00 per week for child support and he is willing to pay that amount. He contests the additional $11.40 weekly, his one-half share of the mortgage payment on the marital home, that the judgment requires he pay.

The husband, a 36-year-old grocery clerk, makes an average of $117.50 per week. The wife, also 36 years old, works as a meat wrapper at an average weekly wage of $94.00. She also receives food stamps of the approximate value of $57.00 per week. The judgment gives the wife the custody of the children and the right to occupy the marital home during the children’s minority. Each spouse is required to pay one-half of the mortgage payments. The court was properly concerned that, given the limited resources of the parties, an adequate shelter be assured for the minor children. There was no abuse of discretion shown.

Accordingly, the judgment below, as modified to delete the prohibition against remarriage, is AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet, statement of income, statement of retained earnings and
statement of cash flows contained in Form 10-Q of Commonwealth Gas Company for
the nine months ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000022620
<NAME> COMMONWEALTH GAS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                            <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-MOS
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>          277,814
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>              0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              63,131
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>            62,895
<OTHER-ASSETS>                     207,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     610,909
<COMMON>                            71,425
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>          234,997
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                  7,746
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>     314,168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>               102,150
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  11,675
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>        3,650
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>     179,266
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>      610,909
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>          195,590
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                 2,173
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         181,753
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>         183,926
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>             11,664
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                     965
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>      12,629
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>             8,596
<NET-INCOME>                         4,033
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>        4,033
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>            14,285
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>            6,311
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>              46,182
<EPS-BASIC>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0



</TABLE>
Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs: 

Sand Filters 

 

This telephone contact report supports EPA’s development of purchased equipment cost equations for sand 

filters by documenting EPA's communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs for continuous backwash 

gravity sand filters used in the Steam Electric cost model.
Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call

Date: 03/21/2011 Time: 11:30 am EST 

Company Name: Siemens 

 

Contact Name: Miguel Gutierrez 

Phone No : (229)-227-8778 

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Sand filters costs for chemical precipitation costing 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

On Monday, March 21, 2011 Mr. Miguel Gutierrez left me a message to discuss costs of sand filters. At 

11:30am I returned Mr. Guitierrez’s call. He told me he could provide costs for pre-packaged sand filter units 

(referred to as package units) which were essentially steel box units which already contain the sand filter 

material. He stated they can also provide concrete basin units where the client constructs a concrete basin for 

the filter and Siemens just provides the internal material. He said concrete basin units are only applicable for 

ranges over 300 gpm, and the cost of such units would be 30% less than that of the package units. 

Mr. Guitierrez provided equipment costs for the flow range previously requested by Rekha Hareendran, which 

was 20 gpm to 700 gpm. While costs are provided for specific flow rates, he stated there is flexibility in the 

units in that they can handle more or less than the specified flow rate. Below are the costs: 

• 20 gpm – their smallest unit could handle this flow rate. The cost is $68,000 

• 100 gpm - $80,000 

• 200 gpm – this is their medium-sized unit. The cost is $98,000 

• 300 gpm – this is their largest unit. The cost is $180,000 

• 400 gpm, 500 gpm – these flow rates could be handled by 2 medium-sized units. The cost is $196,000 

• 600 gpm, 700 gpm – these flow rates could be handled by 2 of the largest units. The cost is $360,000 

I told Mr. Guitierrez that we are now looking for costs for an even smaller flow rate of 7 gpm. Mr. Guitierrez 

stated that this flow rate could be handled by their smallest unit and the cost would be the same as what he 

provided for the 20 gpm flow rate. 

I asked Mr. Guitierrez to provide any additional specifications, details, and marketing material/brochures for the 

sand filters. He stated he would provide drawings, brochures, and blanket specifications (including diameters, 

heights) via email. He also stated that none of the information above is confidential business information and 

can be shared with anyone.
##### 



COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 99.2

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Comprehensive Care Corporation
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2002 (the Report),
Robert J. Landis, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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.

| |  |                                                                               
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/   Robert J. LandisRobert J. Landis
Chief Financial Officer
October 4, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to SS. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

23
#### Samuel Paul DEUTSCH, Appellant, v. Elaine Simpson DEUTSCH, Appellee.

No. 76-1973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

*726William Berger of the Law Offices of Guy B. Bailey, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

MOUNTS, MARVIN U.,

Associate Judge.

The appellant, former husband of the petitioner, appeals an order committing him for contempt for the failure to pay his former wife an alimony arrearage.

The trial court announced during the hearing, almost in the same breath that it found him in contempt, that the court would also have to reduce his alimony payments on a temporary basis:

> “THE COURT: I will give him 30 days to make the $2,400 back alimony payments. And in the event he does not do so, he will serve a term of 30 days in jail.

> MR. PATTERSON: I will draw up the order.

> THE COURT: As to the reduction, I am going to have to take into consideration the testimony, which is not refuted, that he can’t make payments at this time because of his problems; and I will have to reduce his alimony on a temporary basis.”

The trial court made no finding, now clearly required by the law, that the appellant presently had the ability to comply with the order and was willfully refusing to do so or that the petitioner previously had the ability to comply, but divested himself of that ability through his fault or neglect designed to frustrate the intent and purpose of the order.

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is quashed and the cause remanded with directions to make the required finding, if supported by the record, or otherwise vacate the order of contempt. *Garó v. Garo,*347 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1977), *Faircloth v. Fair-cloth,*339 So.2d 650 (Fla. 1976).

QUASHED and REMANDED with directions.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.